This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Craig S. Chartier Plymouth Archaeological Rediscovery Project (PARP) Visit us at www.plymoutharch.com Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org ABSTRACT Site examination testing was conducted at the Samuel Fuller Homesite prior to residential subdivision development in Kingston, Massachusetts. The site is one of three contemporaneously occupied homesites dating to the middle to late nineteenth century and situated within the proposed subdivision development area that were identified during and Intensive Survey of the area. The intensive survey was conducted in the undisturbed sections of the project area by MAP personnel under permit No. 2865 issued by the State Archaeologist. As a result of the survey, 153 test pits (142 test pits placed in six transects, seven judgmental test pits and four array test pits) were excavated, 1,018 artifacts (24 prehistoric and 995 historic) were recovered, and two prehistoric and six historic sites were identified. Three historic cellar holes associated with the Fuller brothers (Samuel, Smith and Daniel) were identified as being potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and were recommended for siteexamination testing. Two of the cellar holes, those of Smith and Daniel, were determined to be located in areas that could be protected from further development and were thus preserved in situ. The cellar hole associated with the Samuel Fuller family, could not be avoided by the proposed development and was subjected to site-examination testing. Surface vegetation consists of developing hardwood scrub and forest with little underbrush. The Samuel Fuller Homesite is situated on a small rise over looking a historic road and in close proximity to present day cranberry bogs. The testing strategies employed for the site examination consisted of the excavation of a series of 50 cm square shovel excavated test pits placed in a grid pattern, followed by the excavation of three trenches (two in a cross-shaped pattern within the cellar hole and one across the width of a depression situated on the edge of the site boundary), and six one-meter-square excavation units. Excavation was carried out to a minimum of 50 cmbgs, well into the B2 subsoil. The site size, based on the presence of test pits with and without cultural material, was determined to be 25 meters east to west by 45 meters north to south. The western edge was defined by the cranberry bog road; the northern edge was defined by a low area of possible soil removal activities and sterile test pits, while the south and east boundaries were defined by two sterile test pits. The overall distribution of material appears to be in a roughly oval shape oriented north to south. 1
Prehistoric cultural material was recovered from several contexts, all believed to have come from one site with scattered material. The prehistoric site was determined to be a low density lithic scatter likely resulting from short term occupation, possibly during the Middle Archaic period. The location of the site was determined to roughly parallel that of the historic site with prehistoric materials occurring in a more random and scattered fashion. Historic cultural material consisted of an appreciable assemblage of ceramics, faunal remains and household architectural material. No outbuildings were identified. Site examination testing found that the site possessed definite boundaries, with a yard scatter, subsurface features, and overall good integrity in the sense that the site has not been disturbed by subsequent post-occupation activities, and a high research potential. The high research potential was due to the observed spatial patterning of subsurface artifacts and features across the site. The site was found to possess definite boundaries, good integrity in the sense that the site has not been disturbed by subsequent postoccupation activities, and high research potential. While it was difficult to attribute various deposits to time periods, there appears to be spatial patterning of subsurface artifacts and features across the site. Archaeological investigations identified deposits dating to the occupation of the site by the Fullers, as well as occupation of the site immediately after, possibly by Kingston’s famed hermit, Daniel Fuller. Extensive background research was conducted, principally focusing on census and tax records, in order to place the Fullers within a larger community context. It is felt that further investigations at the site have the potential to yield significant information regarding the lives of individuals living at a low economic level throughout much of the nineteenth century. The site was found to possess definite boundaries, good integrity in the sense that the site has not been disturbed by subsequent post-occupation activities, and high research potential. While it was difficult to attribute various deposits to time periods, there appears to be spatial patterning of subsurface artifacts and features across the site. Archaeological investigations identified deposits dating to the occupation of the site by the Fullers as well as occupation of the site immediately after, possibly by Kingston’s famed hermit, Daniel Fuller. The Trench 1 and North Yard Midden deposits are terminal deposits of materials cleaned out of the house following Samuel's death. As a result, they represent the artifacts that were present in the house at the time of his death, and that were determined by the cleaners to be worthless and disposable. It is unknown what material may have been removed from the site by those who were cleaning out the house. While the deposit in these contexts seems to show an occupation by someone who saved old bottles and ate off of old plates, it may be a case of these being the artifacts that were not wanted by those who cleaned out the house. In fact, they may have originally made up only a small portion of the actual material-culture assemblage. The Fullers may have had fine china and gold, but these materials could have been removed by the cleaners and thus did not present themselves archaeologically. However, by coupling the archaeological findings with extensive background research, it was determined that the Fullers were of a lower economic station and thus unlikely to own fine china. The disposal of their possessions in an associated pit and a yard midden, indicates that they may not have had much that was worth anything at the time of Samuel’s death and thus many of their possessions were subsequently disposed of on-site. Further excavations could help clarify this issue. As a result, the site is considered eligible for listing on the National Register and avoidance of the site is recommended.
Results of the Field Investigation Intensive Survey testing identified eight sites, two prehistoric and six historic. The two Prehistoric sites included the Fountainhead Brook Site, a lithic concentration of 20 flakes that represents the reduction of a partially finished rhyolite biface, and the Cranberry Road Site, find spot of one rhyolite biface, one rhyolite flake and two pieces of quartz shatter. The Cranberry Road site was located adjacent and partially within the Samuel Fuller home site lot. The Fountainhead Brook Site was not considered significant and no further work was recommended. The prehistoric component of the Cranberry Road Site/Samuel Fuller Homesite was not considered significant and no further work was represented. Six historic archaeological sites were identified during the intensive survey: one twentieth century trash deposit, two possible nineteenth century charcoal burn areas, and three nineteenth century cellar holes. The twentieth century trash deposit was located at test pit T4-5 and consisted of a surficial trash deposit covering approximately ten meters by five meters on the slope of the hill to the west of Cellar Hole 1. The twentieth century trash was deposited after the nineteenth century occupation of the nearby cellar hole had ended and therefore is not associated with Cellar Hole 1. The cellar holes are located along what was once an active historic road and it is not uncommon for people to deposit their trash on a nearby abandoned piece of property. Two areas where likely evidence of charcoal burning took place were identified. One was located on Transect 1 at test pit 5 (T1-5) and one was on Transect 2 at test pit 7 (T2-7). Test pit T1-5 is located an appreciable distance from known historic occupations, but is located close to a known historic roadway. Additionally, one piece of brick was recovered from the same general area along Transect 2 (T2-46) possibly indicating that some historic period activities took place in this area. The charcoal burn area at T1-5 is situated in relatively close proximity to Cellar Hole 3 (Dan Fuller's) and may represent evidence of economic activities carried out by the occupant(s) of that site. Neither potential charcoal burn site was considered significant and no further archaeological testing was recommended. No further testing was recommended for the prehistoric sites, the potential charcoal burn areas or the twentieth century historic trash deposit. Site examination testing was recommended at the three cellar holes and associated house yards if avoidance of these areas was not possible. It was determined that two of the cellar holes (Cellar Hole 2 and 3 associated with Smith and Daniel Fuller, respectively) could be avoided and included within a parcel of land slated for preservation through a preservation restriction due to the presence of spotted turtles. The remaining cellar hole (Cellar Hole 1 associated with Samuel Fuller) could not be avoided. Cellar Hole 1 The Fuller homestead has been registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts site files as Kingston Historic Archaeological site (HA-17). During field work, the cellar hole was located and measured. It was constructed of dry-laid fieldstone, measured 4 meters by 4.5 meters, and was 1.5 meters deep. The eastern and southwestern walls of the cellar hole are slumping and falling in. A one-meter long granite pathway slab and the possible front wall of a terrace are located 2 meters to the south of the cellar hole. A pile of chimney fall is located adjacent to the west wall of the cellar, likely marking the location of the hearth. The entrance to the house appears to have been on the south side. Approximately four meters to the northwest a one meter wide circular depression was present, a possible location for the well used by the occupants. Thirteen meters to the northwest of the cellar hole a two meter wide dug out area was noted on the edge of the small rise on which the cellar hole 3
is situated. The depression is three-sided with the western side being open. It measures three meters east to west and three and one-half meters north to south. Test pit JTP 3 was placed within it, being excavated to a depth of 45 cm. before excavation was discontinued, to be finished during the subsequent Site Examination. The overall topography of the area where the cellar hole is located is a flat rise that drops off toward swampy land to the northwest. A hill is located to the immediate north of the homesite, possibly providing shelter from winter winds and it may have been one of the reasons why the homes were situated here. The area is forested with oak, maple and pines and a 20-30 cm. diameter oak tree is located within the cellar hole. To the immediate south and east of the cellar hole are two portions of road. The southern road is believed to be the same one shown on the 1832 and 1879 maps of the area and tentatively named Fuller Road. The western road is believed to have been either created within modern times to provide access to the cranberry bogs or was part of the historic road that was expanded. Using the 1879 map as a guide, the cellar hole in the project area is associated with the family of Samuel Fuller. Preliminary research determined that Samuel was born in 1814 and died in 1892. He married Mary Churchill sometime around 1836. Mary appeared on the 1860 through 1880 censuses. Mary also appears on the 1900 census where she is listed as living with her niece Maria and a border. Samuel Fuller appears on the 1850 census of Kingston where he was identified as a shoemaker with an estate worth 300 dollars and two children living with him and his wife. Both children had attended school within the past year. Ten years later in 1860, Samuel was identified as a day laborer with an estate worth 300 dollars and one child at home that was a shoe fitter. On the 1870 census Samuel was identified as a farm worker with a 500-dollar estate and no one else living with him. The 1880 census listed him as a white male, married, sixty-five years of age whose occupation was as a laborer who had been unemployed for seven months of the past year and was currently temporarily disabled. The 1890 census listed him as a farmer living on Indian Pond Road. Five hundred and thirty-eight artifacts were recovered from testing around Cellar Hole 1. This material was recovered from eight test pits (T4-7 to 15, JTP 1 to 3) located within 80 meters of the cellar hole. Material was recovered within 13 meters to the west of the cellar hole at JTP 3, 60 meters to the east at T4-15 and five meters to the south at JTP-1. JTP-2 was located five meters to the north of the north wall of the cellar hole, but no artifacts were recovered from this test pit. The majority of the recovered artifacts were ceramics (n=200) and glass (n=172). Ceramics included creamware (1762-1820), pearlware (1795-1840), whiteware (1805-1900+), Rockingham (18451900), Albany Slip stoneware (1840-1920), ironstone (1842-1900+) and redware, indicating a possible occupation range dating from the early to the late nineteenth century. Other artifacts included faunal remains (shell and bone), brick, machine-cut nails, and miscellaneous iron pieces, pieces of possible roof tar, coal, charcoal and one fragment of mortar. Identifiable ceramic vessel forms included a Rockingham bowl and pitcher; a stoneware jug; whiteware, spongeware and pearlware cups; a blue-edged pearlware and a least two transfer-printed whiteware plates; an ironstone chamber pot; and a redware milkpan. The variety of forms and methods of decoration indicate a household of moderate income which used redware for utilitarian vessels, such as those associated with dairying.
Documentary Research The site examination investigated the cellar hole of Samuel Fuller. Samuel’s father, Consider Fuller, was, the son of Ezra and Elizabeth Fuller. Consider’s first wife was Sarah Tilden of Pembroke who was born in 1772. They were married on April 9, 1789 (Kingston Marriages 256). Between 1791 and 1802, the couple had six children (Ezra born 1791, died 1842; Elizabeth born 1792 died 1836; Joanna born 1794 died 1861; Sarah born 1799 died ?; John born 1801 died ?; Caleb born 1802 died 1806). Following Sarah’s death in 1805, Consider married Hannah Eaton in 1806. Hannah who was born in Kingston in 1770. Consider and Hannah had six children between 1807 and 1821 (Nathan born 1807 died 1894; Smith born 1809 died 1894; Daniel born 1812 died 1894; Samuel born 1814 died January 20, 1892; Hannah born 1819 died ?; Waldo born 1821 died 1872). Samuel Fuller married Mary/ Maria Churchill and they had three children, Maria, Lola, Waldo (no birth or death dates for the children have been located through an ancestry.com search). As the results of the intensive survey suggested that Samuel’s father may have been living at the site, documentary research began investigating the property holdings of Consider Fuller. Kingston and Consider Fuller: 1765 - 1829 At the time Consider was born, the first Colonial Census placed the population of Kingston at 759 (Melville 1976). When Kingston was incorporated as a town in 1726, 33 (69%) of the original 48 families lived on the highway along the shore and on Bridgewater Road, five (10%) lived in the northwest section of town towards the Jones River, five (10%) toward Indian Pond on the KingstonPlympton town line, one (2%) near Blackwater Swamp, and four (8%) were unaccounted for (Melville 1976). The Fuller property would have been included in the section of Kingston located near Indian Pond by the Kingston-Plympton town line. In 1784 Kingston contained 11,000 acres of taxable land that included 1,868 acres of pasture; 161 acres of English mowing meadow; 66 acres of salt meadow; 1,605 acres of woodland; 3,583 acres of unimproved land; and 1,197 acres of unimprovable land with only 370.5 a under tillage. Additional acreage was owned by the towns of Kingston, as common land, and Plymouth, as sheep pasture (Melville 1976). At that time the town had a well-established town center with considerable industrial activity along its many streams and brooks including saw mills, forges, gristmills, a shovel works and a dyewood manufactory as well as a growing shipbuilding industry along the Jones River. Wharves along Landing Road and Rocky Nook served as important import and export trade centers (MHC 1984). Deed research conducted on Consider (there were two Consider Fullers, one in Kingston and one in Middleborough, in the deed books for this time period) determined that he purchased several parcels of land in Kingston between 1790 and 1821. In 1790 Consider, a house wright, purchased a 40-acre parcel, with four acres in Broad, Swamp from Croad Sampson for 24 pounds. The deed stated that the parcel, which consisted partly of land that Sampson had received from the division of his father’s estate, and partly of land Croad had purchased from Isaac Lobbel and James Bradford, had been included in the range of the original town lots (Plymouth Deeds 94:268). This deed did not mention any structures as being on the land. In 1802 Consider purchased a woodlot near Broad Swamp, which was partially bounded by his homestead farm, from Thomas Savery of Carver for $5.00 (Plymouth Deeds 94:268); in 1805 he purchased a 4.5-acre parcel that was adjacent to his other property and a little south of his dwelling house for $71 from Nathan Bradford (Plymouth Deeds 136:148); in 1816 he purchased an undivided half of a 3.5 acre meadow in Jones River meadow from [?] Faunce (Plymouth Deeds 130:84); and in 1821 he purchased a .75-acre parcel of land with a house from Ezra Morton for $75.00 with Morton reserving the right to remove the 5
frame that was standing near the house (Plymouth Deeds146:218). A barn is also noted as being on the property- making three structures or partial structures on the .75 acre lot. This .75 acre piece was purchased by Ezra Morton from Levi Wright in 1820, having been purchased by Wright from Consider Fuller the previous year (Plymouth Deeds 139:131). When sold to Morton, the property was said to consist of the land with the buildings. Consider may have built the structure (s?) noted in the deeds prior to selling it to Levi Wright. It is possible that Consider may have begun erecting a house and had to sell it in 1819 for financial reasons, and was subsequently able to purchase it back in 1822, but lost the frame that he had previously erected as part of the sale. Ezra Morton was a merchant in the eighteenth to nineteenth century and appears, from the numerous land transactions recorded in the Plymouth deeds, to have been a land speculator as well. It is likely that Consider’s homestead was located on the 40-acre parcel he purchased in 1790 and that the .75 acre lot was a portion of this larger 40-acre parcel. Kingston’s 1792 tax report to the state noted that of the 1,000 residents in the town there were 118 taxpayers. The town had over 2,400 ft of wharf (up from 400 ft eight years earlier) that was owned by Stephen Drew. Drew owned a 12-ton vessel and nine others in the town owned vessels that ranged in size from 10 to 104 tons. The town’s major crops were wheat, rye, oats, Indian corn, barley, peas, and beans with the town’s biggest producers being Ebenezer Cobb and John Gray (Melville 1976). By the end of the eighteenth century the county road network provided the town with regional connections. At that time Elm Street, though not named, appears to follow the same path as today and Ring Road was identified as the “Road to Plympton and Bridgewater”. Towards the end of the century the town’s minister described the town as being “remarkable for peace, unanimity, and concord” (Hurd 1884). It was during this time period that the old meetinghouse was in need of repair and the town voted to build a new one. While this event turned into a major town happening with people from all professions joining in construction activities, it soon led to what became known as the “Great Fund Controversy” eventually leading to several members of the church leaving and becoming founders of the Baptist Church even though they had never been involved with the Baptist religion. Following is the set of circumstances that led to the above situation. In 1800 a building committee was chosen to settle accounts for the construction of the meetinghouse. A vote was taken to put the money from the sale of the pews in the new meetinghouse into a fund whose interest would be used to support the Congregational minister. In 1802 the town applied to the General Court for an act of incorporation whereby Rev. Willis and six other members of the town would act as trustees of the fund, which was granted. Previously the minister was supported by “free subscription,” which mainly consisted of farm produce. Then in 1803 a majority of people in the town petitioned the General Court to repeal the law for a fund to support the minister, which was refused. Many in the town felt the refusal was due to undue influence on the General Court by those of a high standing in the town. As a result, 38 members of the community and their families left the parish and for awhile were not the members of any church. This led to bad feelings throughout the town. Following this exodus from the Congregational church, the Baptist minister from Middleborough held services in Kingston once a month until 1804/1805 when the Baptist church was officially organized. Consider and Sarah Fuller were among the eight men, one of whom was the minister, and 25 women at the first official meeting of the church. While the Baptists soon became a flourishing society within the town, controversy about the funding of the Congregational minister led to “many harsh and bitter words spoken by both sides” for four or five years (Hurd 1884; Melville 1976).
The first cotton factory was constructed in 1812 on the Jones River between Causation’s/Crosman’s Pond Brook (Fountain Head) and Spring Brook. By 1815 the town had six grist mills, four saw mills, one carding mill, two anchor works, one forge, three shovel manufactories, and two cotton factories. Fountain Head or Causation’s/Crosman’s Pond Brook had a wool carding mill prior to 1821 and a wheelwright’s shop in 1831. In 1824 the Plymouth Cordage Company opened on the Kingston- Plymouth border (Melville 1976). During this same time period there was a failure of crops in 1817 and the town decided to rent a dwelling as a poor house with $600 appropriated for the care of the poor. In 1822 a committee was formed to look into buying a permanent poor house and one was finally acquired in 1827 (Melville 1976) While Kingston’s population increased slowly through the first quarter of the nineteenth century its fishing fleet expanded, the Jones River and the town’s brooks supported a number of iron and nail manufactories, and shoemaking became important to the town’s economy (MHC1984). Prominent members of the town, who ran at least one mill/business were also ship owners. While the town’s merchants were considered to be in the upper echelon of society and politics during the first quarter of the century, the town’s manufacturers soon began to share in the power structure. Consider Fuller died in 1829. According to his will dated April 29, 1829 (Plymouth Probate 67:287), he gave $5 each to nine of his children: his eldest son, Ezra; his eldest daughter, Betsey Drake, wife of Linus Drake; Joanna Bassett, wife of Ichabod Bassett; Sally Bird, wife of Elijah Bird; John; Nathan; Daniel W.; Samuel; and Hannah. He then left Smith and his youngest son, Waldo Ames Fuller, “all my tenements together with all my freehold estate in Kingston and elsewhere, to hold to them the said Smith Fuller & Waldo Ames Fuller, their heirs and assigns forever, to have it equally between them. I also enjoin it on my two sons Smith Fuller &Waldo Ames Fuller to support and maintain my Wife Hannah Fuller so long as she remains my widow. I also give unto my two sons Smith Fuller & Waldo Ames Fuller, all the last residue & remainder of my Personal Estate, Goods and chattels of what kind and nature soever, after paying the above legacies and all my just debts and funeral charges.” At the time of his father’s death, Waldo would have been seven or eight years old. Consider’s inventory appraisal dated October 1, 1829 (Plymouth Probate 67:555) assessed his real estate, which consisted of the homestead together with the woodland containing approximately 41 (possibly 46) acres with the buildings on the same at $875. His personal estate assessment included: • • • • • • • 1 ½ acres of fresh meadow in Plympton, 18 sheep ($18.00), 1 yoke oxen (12.00), cow (10.00), hay (15.00) 103.00 ox cart (15.00), 1 pair old wheels (2.00), farming tools (5.00), 150 boards (1.50) 23.50 ox yoke and chains (1.60), hay & stocks (28.00), old iron(.50), carpenters tools (5.00) 35.10 furniture in front room and cupboard (9.00), furniture in the kitchen (2.50) 11.50 in buttery (1.25), Iron ware (3.00), 3 Fire locks (10.50), watch (2.50) 17.50 15 bushels rye (12.00), corn standing in the field, fruit on the trees and potatoes in the ground (20.00), 2[?] shingles (4.00) 24.00 13 cords of white pine wood cut (13.00), notes [?] hand (33.53) 46.53
In all Consider’s estate, both real ($875.00) and personal (261.13), totaled $1,136.13. While the Early Industrial period is defined as extending from 1830 to 1870 in Massachusetts, industrial development was well underway by 1830 in Kingston. The 1784 statistics describing the 7
ways that taxable land was used is of particular interest as very few acres, approximately 370 out of 11,000 or 3%, were farmed and 1,868 acres or 17% were used for pasture. Unlike other Massachusetts towns where subsistence agriculture and cottage industries underlay a town’s economy prior to the Industrial Revolution, Kingston’s economy relied less on agricultural pursuits than it did on small-scale industrial ventures. Early deeds describe Consider as both a house wright and a yeoman and his inventory strongly suggests that he continued in those professions throughout his life. He probably was involved in both subsistence and market-oriented agriculture. It could very well be that he was involved in the “Great Fund Controversy” as it would have been easier for him to contribute farm produce rather than money to the ministerial fund. The Disposition of Consider Fuller’s Estate: 1830-1849 By September of 1830 it had been determined that Consider’s personal estate was “insufficient for the payment of his just debts and incidental charges by the sum of One Hundred and ninety dollars” (Plymouth Probate 69:349-351), therefore, some of his real estate had to be sold. Consider may have suffered economically from the 1817 crop failure and/or his occupation was not associated with industrial activities, which may account for why he sold the .75 acre parcel in 1819 to Levi Wright. The fact that he owed almost double the value of his personal estate suggests that he was poor and at the low end of the town’s social ranking. Notice of the property sale was placed in the Old Colony Memorial newspaper in Plymouth. In October Eli Cook, Administrator of Consider’s will, sold a lot of woodland that was located in the northerly part of the homestead farm to Samuel Ring for $70.37. No other transactions regarding the sale of Consider’s estate were located during the documentary research. In November of 1830 the remaining real estate was equally divided between his two sons, Smith and Waldo Ames Fuller (Plymouth Deeds 70:230-232). Smith received “nine acres of land with the buildings thereon, being the Easterly part of said deceased homestead Farm”, a piece of swamp adjoining and lying on the westerly side of the homestead, one half of the deceased meadow in Jones River Meadow, and one half of Pew No. 36 on the lower floor in the Baptist Meeting House. Waldo Ames received seventeen acres of the homestead farm with a “small dwelling” that was bounded southerly by the land set off to Smith, a piece of swamp adjoining to and lying westerly of the homestead farm with bounds beginning at the westerly corner of the homestead farm and running southeasterly along the line of the farm, one half of a fresh meadow in Jones River Meadow, and one half of Pew No 36 on the lower floor in the Baptist Meeting House” The grantees also had the right to pass over each other’s land (Plymouth Deeds 70:231-232). While size of the acreage each brother received was different, the parcels were probably worth the same amount of money due to improvements (likely associated with the structures) on each parcel. The brothers received a total of 26 acres (nine plus 17) on the improved lots suggesting that the estate sold at least 10.75 acres to cover Consider’s debts (original 40-acre parcel minus the 4-acre swamp included in parcel that Consider purchased in 1790 would equal 36 acres plus the .75-acre parcel purchased in 1821, minus 26 acres given to brothers equals 10.75 acres). It appears from the above division of Consider’s property that Smith received the family dwelling where his mother was living while Waldo’s “small dwelling” may have been the one on the .75-acre parcel. Exactly what occurred next is unclear as there is no information as to who was living with Consider and his wife when he died and who, if anyone, was living in the small dwelling. In 1831 Smith, listed as a yeoman, received a mortgage from Thomas P. Beal for $125.00 listing the real estate he had received from his father’s will as collateral (Plymouth Deeds 169:203). It’s possible that the money was used to pay off his father’s remaining debt or to buy items for the homestead/farm if most of the personal estate had been sold. One can assume that Smith was living in the family home 8
at this time. In 1842, at age 21, Waldo sold the “homestead of our Father Consider that he devised to me in his will” to Ezra and John Fuller 2nd for $250.00 (it is unclear if the “2nd” after John’s name was a clerical error or if it was someone other than his brother) (Plymouth Deeds 210:199). Whether Waldo ever lived in the house on the property is unknown, it could have been rented out or used by other members of the family. Archaeologically, evidence points to the site being occupied by the 1830s Kingston and the Fuller Brothers: 1850-1892 As the century progressed Kingston reached its peak of manufacturing with the majority of the town residents working in the shipyards or one of its 24 mills (MHC 1984). Assets owned by Kingston’s merchants, shopkeepers and industrialists predominated personal property taxes of the mid 1800s. Tax status was a reflection of the impact of the war, increased immigrant population, and technological advances that pushed industrialization into more populous urban centers. As the population grew though the number of people who could be taxed for personal property did not increase as the population growth reflected the number of workers who moved to the town and owned little if any real estate never mind personal property. Kingston’s valuation in 1890 as set by the state was the 12th in the county yet only about 24 out of the town’s 750 taxpayers had tax bills over $100.00 (Melville 1976). While information was not available as to what Kingston’s actual evaluation was or how many people paid the lowest tax bill and what that amount was, the data that was given suggests that a small number of taxpayers (3 %) were quite wealthy. By the end of the nineteenth century the town’s population grew mainly as a result of foreign-born immigrants working in the tack, brad, rivet and nail companies. Much of what was produced was taken by railroad to shoe making centers. Kingston shared in the general national prosperity that lasted until the Civil War. The school report for 1865 noted that according to the number of polls, Kingston was the richest town in Plymouth County. Following the war the town returned to a more stable economy than neighboring towns that depended on only one industry (Melville 1976; Andrew 1866). In 1874 Kingston had four sawmills, one cotton mill producing thread, two forges, one furnace for casting hollowware, two companies making gimlets, bits, and augers and one making rivets. The town also contained one shipyard and had four vessels in fisheries. The community was still considered to be one of the wealthiest in the county and was free from debt (Nason 1874). Between the mid 1800s and 1920s technology, including the use of electric power and the internal combustion engine by other towns, began to outpace the town’s natural and industrial resources. As time went by Kingston lost it’s standing as debt-free well-to-do town. This downward trend was followed by an unsuccessful return to an agrarian economy (Melville 1976). Information on the Fuller family during this time period was gathered from a variety of sources including deed transactions, town reports, and United States Census. While there was only one deed associated with Samuel during this time period, there were several associated with brothers Smith, Waldo, and John. Following the disposition of Consider’s estate no deed transactions were located conveying property to either Samuel or Daniel. Waldo appears for the first time on the 1850 federal census when he would have been 28 to 29 years old. At this time he is listed as living in the Alexander and Elizabeth Holmes household, distinctly separated from his brothers (he appears on page 19 of the census, they appear on page 27). In 1870 he is listed as a well maker and is living with his wife’s family, the Stetsons, again separate from his brothers (page 40 versus page 28 for Samuel, Smith, and Daniel).
In 1851 Waldo purchased the same homestead property from John and Ezra that he had sold to them in 1842 for $260.00. The deed described all parties as being yeomen from Kingston (Plymouth County Deeds 257:180). Waldo was married in 1852 to Sarah Amanda Stetson. He died in 1872. In 1854 Smith sold over 3 acres of woodland and swamp that had been part of his father’s estate to a Waldo for $60.00. The deed stated that Waldo was from Braintree, indicating that he briefly moved out of Kingston after the 1850 census, only to move back by the 1870s (Plymouth Deeds 262:70). In 1860 Waldo was identified as a conductor who owned his own house and had a servant from Ireland. In 1855, Smith took a mortgage from Waldo, still identified as being from Braintree, for $200.00 for the nine-acre parcel that he had received from his father’s will, that is the easterly part of Consider’s homestead with the buildings (Plymouth Deeds 268:129).In 1857 Waldo, who was from South Braintree, sold two lots of woodland, one 3-acre parcel and one 6-acre parcel, to John T. Holmes; this was the same property that Waldo had purchased from Josiah Holmes in 1851 (Plymouth Deeds 284:141). Still listed as being from Braintree, Waldo sold an undivided half of nine acres and part of the land he got from Jedediah Holmes to Charles Stetson of Kingston for $100.00 in 1860. Waldo appears to have moved back to Kingston, change occupations, and move in with his wife’s family by 1867. In 1867 Waldo, who was cited as being from Plymouth, took a mortgage for $420.00 from George T. Adams and Frederick C. Adams. The collateral for the mortgage included all the property he owned in Kingston: the portion of the homestead farm left to him by his father, that was also conveyed to him in 1852 by Ezra and John Fuller, approximately four acres of woodland purchased from Spencer Everson, approximately 3 acres of woodland and swamp from Smith Fuller, and approximately eight acres of woodland from Seth F. Strainger (Plymouth Deeds 341:125). In 1868, Smith Fuller and Waldo Fuller’s wife were sworn at witnesses in the trial of Samuel Andrews for the murder of Cornelius Holmes, one of the earliest court cases where the insanity defense was used (Davis 1869). Smith Fuller was present soon after the discovery of the body of Cornelius Holmes behind the cemetery in Kingston. Smith stated that he had been working at George Adams’ house near the Kingston Depot that day, and at seven to eight o’clock at night was walking home with his spaniel dog. The path he took ran behind Daniel Delano’s house from the depot through the cemetery (Davis 1869:136). He arrived at the body approximately 45 minutes after it was first found. Mrs. Waldo Fuller stated that she was one of the people who searched the pockets of the decedent and found a draft of his will which stated that the accuses was to receive a lot of land next to his own, upon Cornelius Holmes’ death, a fact which was viewed as providing motive for the killing (Davis 1869:86). All the persons involved in the case were also members of the Baptist church in Kingston. Andrews was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in the State Prison in Charlestown. This case serves to illustrate that the Fullers, were not a reclusive family living on the fringes of society. At least in Smith’s case, he traveled from his house into Kingston center on a regular basis and had regular contact with other people in the town through the venues of church, work and travel. On October 1,1872 Smith made two conveyances of woodland that was located near his dwelling house. The first conveyance was a 2 ¼-acre parcel to Richard B. Holmes for $56.25 (Plymouth Deeds 393:197). The second was a little over 5 acres that he sold to Samuel A. Nutter for $22.80 (Plymouth Deeds 393:243).
Following Waldo A. Fuller’s death in 1872, his land was sold at public auction to repay his debts. In October, Alden L. Bradford, administrator of Waldo’s estate sold a 2-acre parcel of woodland to George Cushman 2nd for $75.00. The property was described as being near the house of Samuel Fuller (Plymouth Deeds 393:201). The only deed that was found associated with Samuel was dated 1886. At that time Samuel conveyed an 8 ¾-acre parcel of woodland that was located near his dwelling house to Marcello Newcomb for $50.00. Samuel had purchased the parcel from Joseph S. Beal in 1871. (Plymouth Deeds 536:337). In 1860 Kingston produced its first printed town report. Prior to that year the town report was given orally at the town meeting. The following table presents references to the Fullers in town reports dating from 1859/60 to 1871 (J. E. Farwell & Co. 1861, 1864, 1867; Andrew 1866; Henry W. Dutton & son 1868, 1869, 1870). Table 1. Town report references to the Fullers 1859/60 to 1871. Year Samuel Smith Daniel W. Relief and Support of the Poor not at the Almshouse/Other Comments 1859/60 Town paid Town paid Town paid $9.00 to Mrs. Samuel Fuller for $2.20 for $2.00 for nursing Smith Fuller’s wife and $2.00 to H. crows heads crows heads K. Keith for supplies for Smith Fuller 1861 Tax: $1.50 Tax: Tax: $1.50 $3.22 1863 Tax: $2.00 Tax: Tax: $2.00 Town paid $4.37 to G.T. and F.C. Adams $2.00 for supplies for family of Smith Fuller 1866 Tax: $2.00 Not Not listed listed 1867 Tax: $2.00 Tax: Tax: $2.00 $2.00 1868 Tax: $2.00 Not Not listed listed 1869 Tax: $2.14 Not Not listed listed 1870 Tax: $2.00 Tax: Tax: $2.00 Town paid $7.04 for Smith Fuller $2.00 It is interesting to note that in1860 Smith was one of 21 poor people (1.3% of the town’s population of 1,655) who were given aid. Also of interest is that with the exception of 1861 when Smith was taxed over twice the amount of Samuel and Daniel, the three Fuller brothers were either at the lowest tax assessed by the town when compared to other residents for those years or in the case of Smith and Daniel were not even listed for 1866, 1868, and 1869 suggesting that they were quite poor at a time period when the town was considered one of the wealthiest in the county. In 1870 Waldo was also listed in the town reports with a tax of $8.97 over four times the amount of his brothers. Post-Samuel Fuller’s Death 1892-1910 When Samuel Fuller died in 1892 he left his wife Maria (a.k.a. Mary) living in the house, and his brothers Smith and Daniel living in their respective homes. Smith and Daniel died in 1894, leaving Maria the only one of the original Fuller couples left living. The 1900 Federal census identifies Maria apparently living in the area, she is identified as the head of a household that is owned, not rented, that is a house not a farm and that is owned free and not mortgaged. Her position on the census shows her among the same neighbors such as the Churchills, as in previous years, leading to 11
the conclusion that she continued to live in the same general area. Living with her was Mary, identified as her niece, and a male boarder named Henry Stetson, aged 61, who was identified as being a day laborer by trade. Maria’s niece Mary, aged 58, was identified as single, as was Henry Stetson, while Maria was identified as a widow. It was noted that the elder Maria and Henry Stetson could read and write and could speak English, while the younger Mary could only speak English but could not read or write. The census taker recorded that Maria had given birth to three children, one of whom was still alive in 1900. Maria was listed on the 1910 census as well. At this time she is 90 years old and living alone. She is identified as having had four children, none of whom were alive in 1910 and was able to read but not write. Neither Mary nor Henry Stetson are identified on the 1910 Kingston census so it can be assumed that Mary either married, died or moved away and that Henry either died or moved. Based on the recovered archaeological data, it appears likely that while Maria continued to live in the same neighborhood, she no longer lived at the Samuel Fuller homesite. It appears likely that following Samuel’s death in 1892 Maria moved in with her niece Mary, Smith’s daughter, and by the 1900 census, possibly as a result of her position as Fuller matriarch, she was considered the head of that household. Maria died sometime before May 1, 1912 when two acres and a dwelling house on the east side of Elm Street, land that Maria had purchased on July 3, 1895 from Daniel Bisbee (which was stated as land inherited by him from his father Daniel) for $1.00, was granted to Henry Olsen (Plymouth Deeds 1119:242). It is likely, due to the archaeological evidence which provides a date of abandonment for the Samuel Fuller site as pre 1900, that following Maria’s purchase of the Bisbee house in 1895, that she lived at this house until her death. Summary In summary, due to the ambiguity of the deeds and Consider’s will bequeaths, it is difficult to definitely say what was going on with the property where Samuel and Mary Fuller lived. We can assume that it was part of the larger, 40-acre, parcel purchased by Consider Fuller in 1790. At this time the property, which was bought of C. Sampson, did not have any structures mentioned, indicating that it was unimproved land. In 1819 Consider sold the .75 acre parcel with a structure on it, to Levi Wright and subsequently repurchased it from Ezra Morton. Archaeologically, evidence points to being first occupied as early as the late eighteenth century, but more likely was first occupied in the 1820s to 1830s. If Samuel, who was married in 1836, had received the house and land prior to Consider’s death in 1829, this may account for the paucity of bequeaths to Samuel in his father’s will. If, instead, Samuel’s house is the one bequeathed to Waldo in 1830, described as a “small house”, then it is possible that Samuel rented, leased, or had some unrecorded family deal where Samuel and his family were allowed to live in Waldo’s house and eventually, after Waldo’s death in 1872, owned the house. Alternately, the “small house” referred to in the division may have been located elsewhere on the property, although this seems unlikely. The first reference to Samuel living at the site is in 1875 and he is identified on the 1879 Walker map. Following Samuel’s death in 1892, his wife Mary/ Maria may have remained at the house for a brief period of time, but it is believed that she subsequently moved out of the house and lived with her niece Mary and a day laborer border. Mary/ Maria was listed as living alone on the 1910 census, and is known to have passed away before May 1, 1912. As it appears from the archaeological record that the house was continually occupied from at least 1831 to the late nineteenth century, it is most likely that Samuel and Mary, who were married in 1831 and were never identified as having lived anywhere else, occupied the site for its entire 12
existence. The presence of artifacts datable to the last half of the eighteenth century, as will be seen in the discussion of the artifacts recovered, can been seen as likely heirloom items from Samuel’s parents and do not represent evidence of a pre-Fuller occupation of the property. United States Census Data The United States Constitution stipulated that taxes would be collected from all persons except “Indians not taxed”. As a result, there was a need from the earliest inception of the United States for a census of the entire population to determine the collection of taxes and to determine the approximation of east in the House of Representatives. On the most basic level, census data was to provide the government with the name of head of household, number of free white males and females in age categories: 0 to 10, 10 to 16, 16 to 26, 26 to 45, 45 and older; number of other free persons except Indians not taxed; number of slaves; and town or district and county of residence. The 1790 to 1820 censuses provided just this basic data. The 1830 census included the number of male and female slaves and free "colored" persons by age categories; the number of foreigners (not naturalized) in a household; the number of deaf, dumb, and blind persons within a household. The 1840 census provided all the same information as the 1830 census but also included the number of Revolutionary War pensioners and the number of people engaged in mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing and trade, navigation of the ocean, navigation of canals, lakes and rivers, learned professions and engineers; number in school, number in family over age twenty-one who could not read and write, and the number of insane. The 1850-1870 censuses included all the above categories of information while also providing the name and personal information of every person in the household and the real estate values. The 1880 census did not contain any real estate values but was the first to identify every person in the household's relationship to the head of the household as well as providing the state, county, and other subdivisions; the name of the street and house number for urban households; illness or disability at the time the census was taken; marital status; number of months unemployed during the year; and the state or country of birth of every individual’s father and mother. Unfortunately, the most of the 1890 census was destroyed in a fire at the Commerce Department in 1921. The result is that less than one percent of the census, enumerating only 6,160 individual, survived and no records remain for Massachusetts While the town records provide a look at the personal worth of the Fullers within the town, the census records allow us to look at the Fullers with respect to their neighbors. The census enumerators provided a running count of both the dwellings and the number of families living within a dwelling. The information below focuses on information obtained by the enumerators on the Fullers and on the three dwellings visited before and after the Fullers from the 1850 census through the1880 census. 1850 Census (Massachusetts, Plymouth County 1850) The 1850 census was the first to list Samuel Fuller (Table 2). When comparing the above data to the 1857 (Walling) map of Kingston it appears as if the census enumerator proceeded south along South Street, then headed west to Elm Street, entered into the Fuller property, and then returned to 13
Elm Street and headed north (Walling 1857). The 1857 map shows a number of shoe shops (it’s unclear if the shoe shop was where shoes were produced or where shoes were sold or both) in this section of Kinsgton as well as in neighbouring Plympton. The number of children working as shoemakers suggest that this may have been a cottage industry and/or piece work was conducted at home with final products being sold to nearby shoe shops. Overall the Fullers’ real estate values are on the low end of the spectrum and comparable to half of their nearest neighbours. Of particular interest is that Daniel is listed between Smith and Samuel. It’s possible that Daniel’s house, which was a shoemaker’s shop that he moved to the property circa 1840s/1850s, may have been perceived to be an outbuilding associated with Smith’s property by the enumerator. The fact that the Fullers are not depicted on the 1857 map of Kingston, makes one wonder about the number of people who may have been living in marginal areas and were therefore overlooked. Table 2. The 1850 Census Data.
House # 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 Name John Cushman Tilden Faunce Henry Churchill Smith Fuller Daniel Fuller Samuel Fuller Judith Hammond Occupation Shoemaker Housewright Laborer Laborer Laborer Shoemaker Value Real Estate 600 1,500 200 500 100 300 1,200 Comments
2 children (ages 15 and 16) were shoemakers
Two families in house: first household is Judith’s (age 60) with Albert Poole, likely son-in-law (age 24) working as a shoemaker; second household Asa Hammond a Housewright with 16 year old Joseph Clark working as a shoemaker 3 children (ages 20, 18 & 16) working as shoemakers
Elisha Stetson Samuel Pratt
1860 Census (Massachusetts, Plymouth County 1860) The 1860 census showed much the same pattern as the 1850 census with regards to the trades being practiced immediately around the Fullers (Table 3). A difference between the two census data is that the term “farmer” as opposed to the term “yeoman” was used on this census. The farmers consistently had the highest estate values and likely employed laborers such as Fullers on their farms. While still considered as living in a separate dwelling, Daniel’s real estate had no value. Of particular interest is the number of houses with two families, suggesting the importance of at least one child (either son or daughter with husband) remaining with the parents and/or the difficulty of moving out on one’s own. Even Smith’s 30 year old son was still at home. Children and members of the second family were working in some capacity in the shoe industry. In 1860, it appears that the enumerator started his day with Sam Ring so only two neighbors were recorded before reaching the Fullers. Again using the 1857 Walling map, the enumerator began at the southern end of Ring Road, headed east to the Fullers, and then continued across Elm Street to Faunce, south along Elm Street and then east along South Street. According to this route the enumerator recorded the Fullers in the order that they were passed.
Table 3. 1860 Census Data.
House # Name Occupation Value Real Estate 35,000 Value Personal Estate 1,000 Comments
3 4 5 6
Samuel Fuller Smith Fuller Daniel Fuller Martin Faunce
Day laborer Day Laborer Day Laborer Farmer
Two families in house: first household includes a milliner, school teacher, farm laborer; second family in house a spinster Included in household is Daniel with a personal estate valued at $450 and Lydia Ring a school teacher with a personal estate valued at $200. Daughter (19) a shoe fitter Two sons (ages 30 and 19) shoemakers One member of household, John Whittier, possibly son-in-law (age 27) a shoe maker Two families in household: first Lemuel and wife; second Harvey, likely Lemuel’s son, (age 30) a shoemaker Two families in house: first household Asa and wife; second household likely his son (age 30) a shoemaker with personal estate $150.
1870 Census (Massachusetts, Plymouth County 1870) The 1870 census identified carpenters, a blacksmith, and farmers around the Fullers, all of whom had estates that were valued much higher than either Smith or Samuel Fuller. Again Daniel had no value attached to his real estate (Table 4). It is interesting to note the nuances used in this census for occupations. While two people, Edmund Doten and Elisha Stetson, are each described as a “farmer,” Smith Fuller is identified as “farming,” and Samuel and Daniel Fuller as well as Daniel Brisbee, Jr., are described as “works farming.” It is not clear if this terminology implies different work-related situations. Other people the in household, such as sons and second families, are also employed “farming.” Asa Hammond’s 19 year old son is noted with “No Occupation” possibly signifying that most males of his age are working. All the married women are noted as “Keeping House.”
Of particular note is that 1870 is the same year that the town paid $7.04 to Smith for relief of the poor outside of the almshouse. With the exception of Daniel Bisbee, the blacksmith, the low real estate values of the Fullers and their neighbors may have been a result of general economic instability that followed the Civil War. For the second year in a row none of the Fuller brothers have any value attached to their personal estate. Using the 1876 Map of Kingston (Boynton) the enumerator began with Henry Cook (#97), then proceeded to Edmund Doten (possibly #99, a house owned by Henry Cook that was rented out in 1876 to William Thomas), then to Daniel Brisbee, the blacksmith (not sure where the house is, possibly #100 that was unoccupied in 1876), he then went northerly up Elm Street and proceeded westerly to record the Fuller information. He visited Smith (#104), Daniel (#105) and then Samuel (#103). As with the 1850 census the Fuller information is taken out of order, suggesting that Daniel 15
“house” was not recognized as such. As Daniel had no value listed for his real estate, it may be that the enumerator didn’t realized there was a residence and skipped it going directly to Smith. After heading east to Elm Street, the enumerator visited Daniel Bisbee, Jr (likely #107, the Heirs of Daniel Bisbee with the estate not yet settled therefore no real estate value listed), Asa Hammond (#106), and then Elisha Stetson (#108). Table 4. 1870 Census Data.
House # 233 234 Name Henry Cook Edmund Doten Occupation Carpenter Farmer Value Real Estate 700 500 Value Personal Estate 600 275 Comments 2 sons (20 and 18) are farming
Daniel Bisbee Smith Fuller
1,300 400 Ezra Fuller (age 45) works farming; not sure how Ezra is related to Smith, the first child of Consider was Ezra, but he would be 79 in 1870
237 238 239 240
Daniel Fuller Samuel Fuller Daniel Bisbee, Jr. Asa Hammond
Works farming Works farming Works farming Carpenter
Asa’s son (19) is farming and interestingly his other son (17) has No Occupation Two families in household: first family has son (30) farming; second family John Nutter (?) age 65 farming and A Powell (age 25) is also farming.
1880 Census (Massachusetts, Plymouth County 1880) While the 1880 census does not note real estate and personal estate values, it does add information about nationality (Table 5). Again using the 1876 map (Boynton) as a guide it appears as if the enumerator is making up for information that had been missed. He is first working to the north of the Fullers by Jones River with Sarah Faunce (#126), then across the street to Walter Faunce (#142) and then to Charlotte Pratt (not sure, possibly # 143 that was owned by Walter Faunce and rented by George Owens in 1876). The enumerator then proceeds to record the Fullers from east to west (#s105, 104, and 103, respectively) likely having traveled down the path to the east of Crosmans’s Pond that leads directly to Daniels house. He then heads to the north side of the Jones River and visits George W. McLaughlin (#128), Frank H. Holmes (#129) and Patrick Malone (#138, in a house owned by Frank H. Holmes). McLaughlin and Malone probably worked for Holmes at his anchor forge (#140). It appears from the data that the anchor manufacturer and workers lived next to each other and near the anchor forge. It appears as if the Fullers had been previously overlooked and their information was added to that taken along with that if residents by the Jones River. It’s unfortunate that real and personal estate values are not listed on this census. While not much can be said about the Fullers’ neighborhood at the time of this census, it is clear that the Fuller brothers had not worked for anywhere from six to 18 months prior to the census and were likely overlooked by one of the census enumerators. It would appear that the Fullers were both economically and environmentally marginal at this time period. This marginal status is reflected and reinforced by the 1890s newspaper article written on Daniel, the Hermit. Table 5. 1880 Census Data.
House # 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Name Sarah Faunce Walter Faunce Charlotte Pratt Daniel Fuller Smith Fuller Samuel Fuller George W. McLaughlin Frank Holmes Occupation Keeping house Retired Teacher Keeping house Laborer Laborer Laborer Anchorsmith Manufacturer of Anchors Works in Anchor Forge Comments
# of months previously unemployed: 18 # of months previously unemployed: 6; wife is rheumatic # of months previously unemployed: 7 Son a laborer 2 female servants born in Mass. whose parents were born in Ireland; one servant, Mary Malone may be daughter of Patrick Malone below 1 son working in anchor forge, 3 sons are laborers; Patrick and wife born in Ireland all children born in Mass.
A review of the U. S. Census data from 1850 to 1880 indicated that the Fullers were surrounded largely by other households of similar status and by people who were engaged in similar occupations. The 1879 Walker map of the Town of Kingston shows the individual houses in the town and also identifies the owners. While the Fullers did not live on one of the main roads in nineteenth century Kingston, they do not appear to have been living an isolated life. Their homes were built within two and one-half miles of the center of Kingston and in 1879 at least, the Fullers had 64 households within one mile of their homes. By taking these names as a starting point, the neighborhood within one mile around the Fullers was examined. This research was conducted in order to place the Fullers within a larger social context. It was hoped that this line of research could answer the following questions:
-Who were the immediate neighbors of the Fullers? -What trades were they engaged in? -What were their estates valued at? -How do their occupations and estate values compare with the Fullers? -How did occupations in this section of the town change over time and how do these changes reflect what was happening in the larger community of Kingston, the region and the Nation as a whole? We were interested in investigating the question of the Fuller's position within their immediate social setting and wanted to know if they were the anomaly within this section of town -the poorer laboring class among more well-off neighbors- or whether they were examples of the typical families in the western section of Kingston in the nineteenth century. As a way of investigating these questions, United States census data for the years 1840-1890 were analyzed. These records were examined with the specific idea being to see who the Fullers’ neighbors within one mile of their houses were, what their occupations were, and what their estates were valued at. The 1790-1880 census data was used to provide socioeconomic and neighbourhood contexts for the occupants at the Fuller site. All available census records were examined to determine what data was recorded for the Consider and Hannah Fuller, Samuel and Mary Fuller, Smith and Daniel Fuller households. The censuses were also used to examine the occupations of the three Fuller families in comparison to the occupations of their neighbours within one mile of them and within the Town of Kingston as a whole. Additionally, because the 1850-1870 censuses record the values of real estate owned by individuals, these were used to examine the position of the households of Samuel, Smith, and Daniel Fuller in relation to each other, to their neighbours and to the larger community of Kingston. The comparison of the occupations and real estate values allowed the Fullers to be compared with their neighbours and fellow townspeople to observe the following:
− − −
how many other people were employed in the same occupations in their neighbourhood and in the larger town how their real estate values compared with others in the same occupation in their neighbourhood and the town how their real estate values compared with other people in the town and neighbourhood
The Fullers had 58 households within one mile of them in 1870, and 64 in 1880. Among those households around them in 1870, 22 people were involved in laborer and worker trades, 12 were employed in sewing/shoemaking/clothing trades, and 39 were involved in self-employed business trades (mason, tack maker, shoemaker, teacher, mariner, forgeman, fish peddler, blacksmith, ropemaker, tacker, house wright, carpenter, miller, anchorsmith, farmer). In 1880, more people were listed as being employed in the laborer/worker trades (N=52), almost the same number were employed in the sewing, clothing, shoemaking trades (N=13), and the same number were selfemployed (N=39). Generally, while some aberrant occupations were present, for the most part the inhabitants of western Kingston were farmers and laborers who, in the middle nineteenth century were engaged principally in farming and shoemaking. As the century progressed, shoemaking became less of the focus, a wider range of occupants were now living in this section of town, and clothing related (sewing, dress-making, clothing making), laborer, and factory worker trades replaced the shoe and nail making as the principal occupations of the inhabitants (Table 6).
Table 6. Individuals living within one mile of the Fullers.
Trade Housewright/ Carpenter Yoeman/ Farmer Laborer/ Farm Worker Mason Shoeworker Anchorsmithing Blacksmith Nailer/ Tacker Factory Worker Sewing 1850 1860 1870 4 1 4 7 9 17 7 9 8 5 2 3 13 13 10 1 1 3 3 1 1 7 2 2 0 0 1 0 3 2 47 41 51 1880 8 8 24 2 2 2 1 1 9 9 66
Between the 1850 and 1870 censuses, the Fullers consistently ranged in the lower one to two-thirds of the (estate values of 0-$500.00) their neighbors. In 1850 and 1870, over two-thirds of their neighbors (1850-67.5%; 1870- 69.5%) of their neighbors had estates that were valued higher than theirs while in 1860 only 35.6% of their neighbors ranked higher (Table 7). 7. Household estate values for neighbors within one mile of the Fullers.
Household Estate Value 0-100 200-300 301-500 501-700 701-1000 1001-2000 2001-3000 301-6000 Over 6000 Total
1850 10 (Daniel) 3 (Smith and Samuel) 2 3 4 5 3 10 0 40
1860 17 (Daniel) 5 (Smith) 7 (Samuel) 1 3 3 5 3 1 45
1870 10 (Daniel) 0 8 (Samuel and Smith) 12 5 15 2 7 0 59
Summary Due to the vagrancies of deed recording and the possibility of the occurrence of unrecorded gifts of land, it proved difficult to trace the project area back through time with anything but a moderate degree of certainty. The property appears to have been part of the larger 40 acre parcel purchased by Consider Fuller in 1790. Consider’s will indicates that Smith Fuller inherited the family house, making it unlikely that the house in the project area is the Fuller family homestead. The only other house that was occurs in association with Consider Fuller is a small house, barn and frame on .75 acres that Fuller sold to Levi Wright and then bought back from Ezra Morton after Wright had sold it to him. Consider’s will leaves a “small house” to Waldo Fuller, which may be the same house Consider presumably built before 1818, when he sold the .75 acre parcel and the house on it to Wright. Waldo Fuller appears to have never lived at the site and by default it is reasonable to assume that Samuel and Mary/ Maria Fuller were the first people to occupy the site in the 1830s, possibly as a result of an unrecorded agreement between the brothers. The possibility does exist that, due to lack of any evidence to the contrary, that someone else lived there, but as it is certain 19
that Samuel lived there later, Samuel and his family are the most likely first occupants, if not owners, of the site. Samuel and Mary/ Maria continued to live at the site, never really showing up in the historical record as much as his brothers Daniela and Smith did, until Samuel’s death in 1892. Following Samuel’s death it is believed that his widow is believed to have moved away and bought a house on Elm Street. Census data from 1850 to 1880 indicated that the Fullers were surrounded largely by other households of similar status and by people who were engaged in similar occupations. They were first listed on the 1850 census but are not shown on the 1857 map of Kingston, possibly indicating that they were perceived as living in a marginal area and were therefore overlooked. The 1860 census is of particular interest for the number of houses with two families, suggesting the importance of at least one child (either son or daughter with husband) remaining with the parents and/or the difficulty of moving out on one’s own. Even Smith’s 30 year old son was still at home. Children and members of the second family were working in some capacity in the shoe industry which reflects the importance of the shoe industry in the town at this time. The 1870 census showed that the Fullers and several of their neighbors had some of the lowest real estate values in the town, possibly as a result of general economic instability that followed the Civil War. For the second year in a row none of the Fuller brothers have any value attached to their personal estate. 1870 was also the same year that the town paid $7.04 to Smith for relief of the poor outside of the almshouse. The Fullers also appeared both economically and environmentally marginal on the 1880 census. When the locations and occupations of the neighbors of the Fullers were examined it was found that, while the Fullers did not live on one of the main roads in nineteenth century Kingston, they do not appear to have been living an isolated life. Their homes were built within two and one-half miles of the center of Kingston and in 1879 at least, the Fullers had 64 households within one mile of their homes. Generally, while some aberrant occupations were present, for the most part the inhabitants of western Kingston were farmers and laborers who, in the middle nineteenth century were engaged principally in farming and shoemaking. As the century progressed, shoemaking became less of the focus, a wider range of occupants were now living in this section of town, and clothing related (sewing, dress-making, clothing making), laborer, and factory worker trades replaced the shoe and nail making as the principal occupations of the inhabitants. Between the 1850 and 1870 censuses, the Fullers consistently ranged in the lower one to two-thirds of the (estate values of 0-$500.00) their neighbors. In 1850 and 1870, over two-thirds of their neighbors (185067.5%; 1870- 69.5%) of their neighbors had estates that were valued higher than theirs while in 1860 only 35.6% of their neighbors ranked higher. An understanding of the Fuller’s position within their neighborhood and in Kingston proper proved invaluable when the archaeological data recovered from the Site Examination was examined and interpreted.
Site Examination Testing Test pits A total of 54 50-x-50 cm square shovel test pits were excavated in a five-meter grid pattern around the Fuller cellar hole (Figure 1). Half of these test pits contained historic or prehistoric artifacts, the
Figure 1. Site Examination Testing Samuel Fuller Homesite other half were sterile (Table 8). The A1 horizon varied in depth from 10 to 20 cm and consisted of dark brown silty sand with moderate amounts of gravel and rock. Below the A1 horizon, a yellow brown silty sand B1 was encountered to an average depth of 45 cm below the surface. No cultural material was recovered from the B1 horizon. Light yellow brown silty sand heavy gravel B2 horizon underlay the B1. The B2 horizon was excavated for an average depth of 20 cm. Total test pit depths ranged from 50 to 65 cm below surface and all test pits were excavated well into the B2 horizon in order to examine the possibility of deeply buried archaeological remains. One prehistoric artifact, a quartzite decortification flake, was recovered from test pit S10 E05 in the A1 horizon. Five hundred and seventeen historic artifacts were recovered including bone, shell, charcoal, tar and tar-soaked wood, curved and flat glass, one piece of flint, machine-cut and handwrought nails, mortar, brick, and pottery.
Table 8. Artifacts recovered from five-meter grid testing around the cellar hole. Ceramic South Yard North Yard West Yard East Yard Creamware Pearlware Redware Whiteware Ironstone Yellowware Stoneware Total 9/18.4% 13/26.5% 13/26.5% 13/26.5% 0 0 1/2% 49/100% 1/1.5% 16/23.5% 18/26.5% 28/41.2% 2/3% 2/3% 1/1.5% 68/100% 0 15/27.2% 29/52.7% 11/20% 0 0 0 55/100% 0 2/20% 2/20% 6/60% 0 0 0 10/100%
Total 10 46 62 58 2 2 2 182
As the Surfer distributions show, the earliest ceramic type, creamware, was concentrated in the south yard while the latest ceramic types (whiteware, yellowware, ironstone) were concentrated in the north yard. Material recovered from the north yard largely was the result of the c. 1890s terminal deposits more fully investigated by Trench 1 and EUs 1-3. The concentration of redwares in the west yard is believed to be the result of the deposition of kitchen related waste in the west yard, especially associated with the deposits investigated in EU 4. Pearlware appears to be fairly evenly distributed in all of the yard areas. The concentrations in the north yard (N20 E05, N25 E05, N30 E05) were investigated with EUs 1-3, the west yard concentration (N15 E00) was examined with EU 4, and a south yard concentration at N10 E00 was further investigated with EU 5. Trenches As proposed in the Site Examination permit application, a total of three 50 cm wide trenches were excavated during the Site Examination. Trench 1 was four meters long and was located across the deposit in the depression to the north of the cellar hole. Trenches 2 and 3 were excavated across the cellar hole, with Trench 2 oriented east to west and Trench 3 oriented north to south. Trench 1 Trench 1 investigated the depression that had been excavated into the north side of the hill on which the Fuller homesite was located (Figure 2). This depression was circular in shape and measured four meters east to west by four meters north to south. It was oriented so that its open end faces the natural depression to the north. Trench 1, situated along the long axis of the depression, measured four meters long and was oriented east to west. Excavation revealed that the depression appears to have been excavated as a borrow pit from which A, B1, B2, and C1 horizon soils were removed Figure 3). The depression was used as a disposal area for rubbish following the removal of the soils. It appears that this was a primary rubbish deposit which was created as a single short-term episode and appears to have originated from the south, towards the house. Gross comparison of artifact classes from the top to the bottom of the deposit did not reveal any significant variations in the occurrence of material types and cross-mends were present between the upper and lower levels indicating that the material was deposited over a relatively short period. The artifacts recovered date generally to the first half of the nineteenth century (Table 9). A concentration of brick fragments and broken bricks was encountered in the southern quarter of the trench, roughly oriented towards the chimney and chimney fall to the southeast. The depression surface was 80 cm below the present ground surface to the south at its center with 45 degree sloping sides. The primary concentration of materials was between 10 and 40 cm below the surface of the depression. The bottom of the original excavation was 118 cm below the southern ground surface. Soil sample flotation failed to reveal any botanical or microfaunal remains. 22
Figure 2. Site map showing cellar hole testing
Figure 3. Trench 1 profile.
Table 9. Artifacts recovered from Trench 1.
Artifact Class Bone Shell Shell Button Glass Button Curved Glass Flat Glass Slate Cuprous Decorative Leaf Iron Can Machine-Cut Nails Iron Spoon Bowl Iron Cooking Pot Pewter Spoon Handle Mortar Brick Redware Creamware Pearlware Whiteware Ironstone Yellowware Rockingham Stoneware Tobacco Pipe Tar Total Count 11 31 1 2 483 116 2 1 163 17 1 1 1 1 101 156 2 123 185 14 95 104 24 1 33 1692
Temporally diagnostic artifacts that were recovered from Trench 1 included several two-piece mold blown bottles (1830-1875), solarized flat glass fragments (post 1880), clear glass bottles (post 1860), spatterware (1780-1850), molded yellowware (1860-1900), Rockingham pottery (18401900), and Flow Blue ironstone (1840-1879). These artifacts indicate that the assemblage must have been deposited after 1880 and the range of items present makes it likely that this deposit represents a cleaning out of the house, especially the kitchen area of the house, following the death of Samuel Fuller in 1892. Trench 2 Trench 2 measured a total of 14 meters long by 50 cm wide. The trench extended five meters to the east and west of the cellar hole and measured four meters across the cellar hole itself (Figure 2). The first meter to the east of the cellar hole (Trench 2, 0-1 meters east of the east wall of the cellar hole) appears to represent a combination of slump into the cellar hole and possibly the edges of the hole that was dug for the construction of the cellar hole. The remainder of the eastern portion of the trench (Trench 2, 1-5 meters east of the east wall of the cellar hole) represents the yard outside of the eastern wall of the original house (Figure 4). The portion of the trench to the west of the cellar hole appears to represent three contexts: the hearth (Trench 2, 0-2 meters west of the west wall of the cellar hole); the western room of the house (Trench 2, 2-4 meters west of the western wall of the cellar hole); and the western yard (Trench 2, 4-5 meters west of the western wall of the cellar hole). The hearth was represented by a concentration of brick and mortar that overlaid a concentration of granite cobbles that appear to represent a portion of the floor of the hearth. Associated with the hearth, aside from the brick and mortar, were numerous pieces of faunal material (primarily wild bird and fish), and two fish hooks (Table 10). 25
Figure 4. Trench 2 wall profile
Table 10. Artifacts from Trench 2 0-2 m. west of cellar hole west wall (hearth).
Artifact Bone Shell Charcoal Curved Glass Flat Glass Argillite Possible Neville Flint Fragment Gunflint Pewter Button Flat Iron Fragments L-shaped iron Bracket Machine-cut nail Iron Fishhook Hand-wrought nail Iron Knife Iron cup handle 3-link Iron Hearth Chain Iron Spoon Handle Iron Slag Fragment Mortar Brick Creamware Earthenware Pearlware Redware Whiteware Tar Paper Totals Count 48 8 4 8 14 1 1 1 1 16 1 24 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 653 330 4 1 7 42 2 3 1178
The faunal assemblage is completely different from any other faunal recovered from the site, making it likely that this deposit represents something else different from a hearth deposit associated with Samuel Fuller. It is believed that they may represent occupation of the house by Daniel Fuller, after the death of his brother Samuel in 1892, or alternately, that they represent the occupation of the abandoned house by squatters some time after 1892. The presence of a gunflint and fishhooks as well as the wild species present, indicates that whoever left the deposit was hunting and fishing nearby and then consuming or processing that material at the hearth. The foundation for the house, encountered at four meters to the west of the west wall of the cellar hole, consisted of granite boulders arranged in a linear fashion to the north. The cellar hole was tested with four-meter long sections of both Trenches 2 and 3. The Trench 2 section consisting of a layer of brick and mortar in the westernmost meter (Trench 2, 3-4 meters west of cellar hole east wall) that over laid a cobble and boulder cellar hole wall-fall layer covering all of the cellar hole's present surface. Four fill layers were identified in the cellar hole. Fill layers 1 and 2 were relatively thick soil layers that contained larger cobbles and granite erratics, originally part of the foundation and cellar hole walls, that had tumbled into the cellar hole after the site's abandonment. Fill Layer 1 was a dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy silt that had dense deposits of brick and mortar, representing chimney fall, adjacent to the hearth area (Trench 3, 3-4 m north of the cellar hole south wall; Trench 2, 3-4 m west of the cellar hole west wall). Fill 2 was a dark olive brown (2.5 Y 6/6 silty sand which also contained larger boulders and cobbles from the walls and foundations. This layer had less brick and mortar than Fill 1. Both Fills 1 and 2 appear to have been deposited after the abandonment of the structure. These relatively thick layers (10-35 cm for Fill 1 and 7-25 cm for Fill 2) likely represent a deposition of soils resulting from the upper courses 27
of the cellar walls collapse and subsequent washing in of the associated soils during and after the decomposition and collapse of the superstructure. The Fill layers were deepest at the northern end of Trench 3 (Trench 3, 3-4 m north of the cellar hole south wall) and the western end of Trench 2 (Trench 2, 3-4 m west of the cellar hole eastern wall) Fill 3, a yellow (2.5 Y 7/8) silty sand appears to represent the upper surface of the cellar floor. This layer lacked the larger rocks of the upper layers and had far fewer artifacts. Fill 3 was deepest at the northern end of Trench 3 (Trench 3, 3-4 m north of the cellar hole south wall) where it was 15 cm deep, and at the western end of Trench 2 (Trench 2, 3-4 m west of the cellar hole east wall) where it was seven centimeters deep. Fill 4 represents the lower layer of original dirt cellar floor. This olive yellow (2.5Y 6/6) fine sandy silt lacked any large rocks and the artifact distribution was very similar to Fill 3. Below Fill 4, a lighter soil layer was present. Originally, designated Fill 5, this yellow fine sand layer appears to represent the upper portion of the natural C1 horizon that had been disturbed and discolored by the excavation of the cellar hole and the occupation (Fill 4) above it. No cultural material was recovered from this layer which was only identified in Trench 3, 3-4 m north of the cellar hole south wall where it was 10 cm thick. The natural yellow to pale yellow (2.5Y 8/4-8/6) fine silty sand C1 horizon was encountered below this layer. Soil sample flotation failed to reveal any botanical or microfaunal remains from the cellar hole. Trench 3 The cellar hole portion of Trench 3, which was located from 0 to four meters north of the cellar hole south wall, was represented by a well-developed A0/Duff horizon on the surface of the present cellar hole floor. This 5-7 cm thick layer was composed of dense small root mat. Below the A0 layer, Fill Layer 1, a dark olive brown (2.5Y 3/3) silty sand with moderate amounts of gravel and a heavy concentrations of brick and mortar in the northern half (2-4 m north), was encountered This layer was between 15 and 27 cm deep, extending from 20 to approximately 35 cmbs, with the deepest portion adjacent to the northern cellar wall. Fill Layer 1 represents post-occupation soil wash in and architectural collapse. Fill layer 2 was dark olive brown (2.5 y 6/6) silty sand with moderate amounts of gravel that was on average between 5 and 15 cm deep extending from 25 to 50 cmbs with the deepest portion again adjacent to the north wall. This layer also appears to represent post-occupational deterioration of the structure, possibly prior to the collapse of the walls and chimney. The northern section of Trench 3 (Trench 3, 0-4 meters north of the north wall of the cellar hole) represents material deposited to the north of the north wall of the house. It is believed that the north wall of the house rested on the north wall of the cellar hole A high concentration of architecturally related debris (nails, roofing asphalt, tar soaked wood) indicates that when the house eventually collapsed, it fell to the north (and east). Trench 3 northern section extended only four meters to the north instead of five due to the presence of a large sump from 4-5 meters north. It was determined that the trench already existed outside of the house walls, so further excavation on the other side of the stump was not necessary. The southern section of Trench 3 (Trench 3, 0-5 meters south) encountered the terrace fill on the south side of the house as well as a portion of the south yard. Trench 3 from 0 to 1 meter south of the cellar hole south wall represented the area under the floor of the south room of the house. The south terrace fill was encountered from 1-4 meters to the south of the cellar hole south wall. It 28
consisted of a five-centimeter deep A0/duff horizon that overlaid a dark yellow brown (10 YR 4/6) sandy silt A (possible fill) horizon to a depth of 20 cmbs. Below the dark yellow brown soil, a yellowish brown B1 horizon was encountered to a depth of 40 cmbs, below which the B2 horizon olive brown fine silty sand) was encountered. Cultural material was recovered from the A horizon. It appears that either the house was built on top of a natural rise in the landscape, or else a slightly higher area in the landscape had its original A1 horizon removed and then was filled with redeposited B1 horizon soils from somewhere else. The terrace was fairly level from 0 to three meters to the south of the cellar hole wall, and then began to slope to the south, encountering a drylaid fieldstone retaining wall at 3.5 meters to the south of the cellar hole south wall. This retaining wall was extended from the surface to 40 cm below surface and was 50 cm wide. To the south of this wall, from 4-5 meters south, deposits from the south yard were encountered. Artifacts recovered from Trench 3 south of the cellar hole are tabulated below (Table 11). The majority of the artifacts from 0-4 meters south consisted of architectural materials (N=275/74%; N=127/69.4%), while from 4-5 meters south ceramics (especially fragments from one plate) made up the majority of the assemblage. Other artifacts, materials that may have been present on or below the floor of the house (spectacles, graphite, flint, buttons, clothing eye), were recovered from 0-1 meter south. Overall the ceramics recovered from the terrace fill would generally indicate a date of construction after approximately 1830 and possibly before 1850, possibly meaning that it may date to either before the occupation by Samuel and Mary Fuller, ca. 1850, or to their initial occupation. It is not possible to discern if the terrace was constructed by Samuel and Mary Fuller or before them. Ceramics similar to those recovered from this terrace fill were also recovered from EU 4 and EU 5, which is also believed to date either to the initial occupation by Samuel and Mary Fuller ca. 18401850, or to the earlier possible occupation. Table 11. Artifacts from 0-5 meters south of the cellar hole south wall.
Artifact Bone Shell Charcoal Tar Soaked Wood Hand-Wrought Nails Machine-Cut Nails Tar/Tar Paper Brick Mortar Flat Glass Curved Glass Earthenware Creamware Pearlware Ironstone Whiteware Redware 0-1 m South (South Room) 5 1 5 4 1 40 17 97 3 113 2 2 3 16 10 11 2 1 10 1 16 38 44 13 5 2 1 1 13 1 23 3 106 4 1 3 6 7 1 4 3 1-4 m South (Terrace Fill) 1 4-5 m South (South Yard) 7
Artifact Clay Pipe Spectacles Graphite Flint Cuprous Pin Iron Button Clothing Eye Oxen Shoe Fork Wire Lithics Totals
0-1 m South (South Room) 1 1 1 1 1 1
1-4 m South (Terrace Fill) 1
4-5 m South (South Yard)
1 1 1 1 2
Excavation Units (EUs) Excavation of the 1 x 1 meter units was designed to sample areas that, during the test pits testing, a) yielded high artifact counts indicative of possible refuse disposal (dump) areas or episodes, or b) revealed evidence of intact subsurface anomalies related to the prehistoric or historic occupation and utilization of the project area. Six units were excavated four of which (EUs 1-4) were located in areas of high artifact concentrations, while the remaining two were placed where subsurface anomalies were encountered during testing (EU 5) and where subsurface anomalies were expected based on a projection of the expected foundation walls (EU 6). All excavation units encountered a five cm thick A0/duff consisting principally of forest detritus and root mat, below which a dark yellow brown A1 horizon was encountered to approximately 20 cmbs. Below the A1 horizon, a yellowish brown B1 horizon was encountered, which was excavated to an average depth of 50 cmbs. A sterile olive yellow brown B2 horizon was found below the B1 and consisted of coarse sand in the western half of the project area and a gravelly sand in the eastern half. Excavation Units 1-3 encountered what is believed to be a contiguous surface midden deposit. This deposit, measuring at least 15 meters north to south by between one and ten meters east to west, appears contemporaneous with the deposit from Trench 1 with ceramics cross-mending between the two contexts. The refuse deposit in EUs 1-3 was found to extend from just below the A0 horizon to a depth of 10 cm below the surface. It was a relatively dense deposit which may represent a refuse pile that was subsequently moved and deposited within the depression at Trench 1. The deposit, like that of Trench 1, was dated to the late nineteenth century. This deposit likely dates to a cleaning-out episode for the household following the death of Samuel Fuller in 1892. The artifact deposit from EU 4, which was located to the immediate west of the house, appears to represent a combination of demolition debris consisting of architectural elements (nails, brick, mortar, flat glass) and domestic refuse associated with the hearth and kitchen area (bone, redware, 30
charcoal, ceramics). The date of deposit for this assemblage appears earlier than the EUs 1-3 midden, and may date to the initial occupation of the site in the early nineteenth century. The presence of architectural materials is likely related to the construction of the building. Excavation of EU 5 revealed a dry-laid fieldstone wall that defined the southern and western edges of the terrace upon which the structure was constructed. This dry-laid wall extended from the surface to a depth of 65 cmbgs and a variety of artifacts were found within the fill associated with the terrace (Figure 5). The assemblage is similar to that from EU 4 and likely represents cooccurrence deposition, again likely during the construction of the house and terrace mound. EU 6 was excavated in order to investigate the presence of a group of scattered large stones to the east of EU 4 (Figure 7). This area was beyond the northern wall of the cellar hole. Excavation revealed an L-shaped foundation extending to the east and south outside of the excavation unit. Artifactual evidence revealed materials likely associated with construction and early occupation of the house. Artifacts recovered from EU testing are tabulated in Table 12.
Figure 6. Excavation Unit (EU) 5 plan at 20 cmbgs showing south terrace wall.
Figure 7 . Excavation Unit (EU) 6 plan at 10 cmbgs showing corner of house foundation (interior of house to right side).
Table 12. Artifacts recovered from EU testing.
Artifact Bone Shell Charcoal Flat Glass Machine-Cut Nails Hand-Wrought nails Brick Mortar Tar Curved Glass Earthenware Creamware Pearlware Ironstone Whiteware Rockingham Yellowware Redware Stoneware Pipe Glass Button Cuprous Button Iron Button Oil lamp Cuprous Plate Cuprous Wire Cuprous Cap Iron Spoon Iron Wall Hook Iron Fragment Iron Chisel Melted Lead Melted Glass Coal EU 1 9 200 1 0 5 0 3 0 0 22 0 1 0 46 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EU 2 3 6 17 11 6 1 8 0 0 33 3 7 2 1 48 0 0 98 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EU 3 5 2 0 4 7 0 3 0 13 14 1 0 0 10 17 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 EU 4 16 1 20 48 26 3 60 24 1 16 11 15 35 0 87 0 3 176 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 EU 5 11 2 8 23 21 2 106 0 6 11 2 45 62 0 26 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 EU 6 6 30 8 17 19 0 127 10 4 7 6 23 5 0 19 2 2 48 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 3 34
Totals Artifact Analysis
Artifacts recovered from the Site Examination testing (N=11,413 individual pieces) indicate smallscale prehistoric occupation, focused on Fountainhead Brook, as well as extensive evidence of the occupation of the site by the Fullers in the nineteenth century. Prehistoric Artifacts Prehistoric artifacts took the form of 18 pieces of lithic debitage (flakes, flake fragments and shatter) and two bifacial tool fragments. Prehistoric artifacts were recovered from the eastern, western and southern yards as well as from near the hearth and in the cellar hole. All the artifacts were recovered from the A1 horizon or with historic contexts, indicating that if a prehistoric site was at one time present; it no longer has any integrity and is of limited value and significance. One possible diagnostic artifact recovered from the hearth area in Trench 2 was the midsection of an argillite projectile point, possible of Neville form (Figure 8 ).
Figure 8. Argillite bifaces (Left: T2 1-2 m E 10-20 cm, Right: T2 1-2 m W 10-20 cm). The prehistoric artifacts recovered are shown below in Table 13. Table 13. Prehistoric artifacts recovered during Site Examination testing.
Material Argillite Quartz Artifact Biface Possible Neville Shatter Count 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Location T2 1-2 m East T2 1-2 m West EU 2 EU 2 EU 4 EU 6 T2 1-2 m East Depth 10-20 cm 10-20 cm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 20-30 cm 20-30 cm 10-20 cm
1 1 1 1 Flake 1 1 1 Quartzite Rhyolite Total Flake Flake 1 1 1 18
T2 2-3 m West T2 3-4 m West T3 2-3 m North T3 3-4 m South T2 0-1 m East T3 4-5 m North in CH T3 2-3 M North in CH S10 E05 T3 1-2 m South T3 3-4 m North in CH
10-20 cm 0-10 cm 0-10 cm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 0-10 cm 20-25 cm 0-18 cm 10-20 cm 35-40 cm
Unfortunately, due to the context of the find, on a historic hearth, it is likely that the artifact was brought to the site during the historic period and is not in its original context. It therefore offers little in the way of dating or adding to the prehistoric context of the site. The other types of artifacts recovered at the site indicate that argillite tools were brought to the site in a finished form, while rhyolite and quartzite tools were possibly brought to the site in an unfinished form and given their final or further finishing there. Quartz on the other hand was represented by both shatter and flakes possibly indicating either several phases of reduction or that a roughly reduced core was carried to the site and further reduced on site. The low density of prehistoric artifacts and lack of any subsurface anomalies indicates short term occupation of the site, possibly as a hunting stop over area during the Middle Archaic. Historic Artifacts A total of 11,172 historic period artifacts were recovered from Site Examination testing. Historic artifact analysis began with the separation of materials into the functional categories of Household Equipment (ceramics, glass, cooking and eating, furniture hardware, sewing equipment), Personal Items (tobacco pipes, eyeglasses, clothing, beads, coins, toys, gun parts), Construction Materials (window glass, nails/spikes, building hardware [hinges, pintles, padlocks, keyhole, key], brick, mortar, plaster, roofing material), Labor and Technology Tools (transportation equipment, other tools), and Subsistence Items (procurement equipment, floral, faunal) (Table 14).
Table 14. Artifact classes.
Class Household Equipment Ceramics Glass Containers Cooking/Eating Equipment Furniture Sewing Lighting Equipment Personal Writing Equipment Tobacco Pipes Clothing Items Beads/Jewelry Spectacles Personal Bags Gun Equipment Construction Window Glass Nails Building Hardware Brick/Mortar/Plaster Roofing Materials Labor and Technology Transportation Equipment Tools Class Subsistence Procurement Equipment Faunal Remains Other Total Count 3,553 2,672 568 12 1 3 297 58 6 16 22 4 2 2 6 6,677 685 487 10 2,279/2,24 1 475 9 3 6 Count 525 2 523 350 11,172
Dating the Contexts Based principally on the ceramics and glass recovered from the excavations, occupation of the Samuel Fuller Home site appeared to span the very late eighteenth to early nineteenth century, until the late nineteenth century. Documentary evidence places the occupation of the site possibly to the late eighteenth century at the earliest, throughout the nineteenth, and ending by the 1890s. The property is believed to have been purchased by Consider Fuller in 1790 as part of a larger parcel. The deed of sale does not mention any structures standing on the land, making it likely that it was undeveloped at the time. It is believed that Consider built the family home at the site which later, through inheritance, became Smith Fuller’s home. Consider Fuller sold a parcel of land to the west of his homestead in1818 to Levi Wright. Unfortunately the deed for this sale, which is references in 1819 when Wright sold the land to Ezra Morton, has not been located so it is unknown if a structure was on the property when Wright acquired it. When Wright sold it, the deed included a house with the land indicating either that Fuller or Wright built or at least started to build a house on the property. Given that Wright only owned it for a few months it is more likely that Fuller, a house wright, had constructed or started to construct a house on the property after he purchased it in 1790. The house and land then was sold back to Consider Fuller in 1822. Consider’s 1829 will left this parcel to his youngest son Waldo, who was 9 at the time of his father’s death. It is assumed that Waldo continued to live with his mother at the family house (Smith’s house). Smith was married in 1830 while Samuel was married around 1836, making this the likely earliest date of occupation by Samuel and Maria Fuller. Samuel died in 1892 and Maria is known to have bought a house off property in 1895, which coordinates well with the artifactual record. The fact that Maria (Mary) Fuller lived until at least 1910 brings up the question of the twentieth century sheet midden identified to the west of the Samuel Fuller site. This midden was identified during Intensive survey testing and was considered to post-date the occupation of the Samuel Fuller homesite. The presence of a machine-made bottle bearing the embossed capacity mark of “ONE PINT 6OZS” indicates that this bottle was made after 1913, while the presence of blue and white stoneware indicate a 1900-1940 date. The abundance of coal from this deposit also marks it being different from the Samuel Fuller site where no coal was found. The twentieth century midden encountered during the intensive survey dates to at least after 1913 and as such can be conclusively stated to as not being associated with the occupation at the Samuel Fuller homesite. The lack of any twentieth century rubbish at the site makes it likely that following the death of Samuel Fuller in 1892, the site was abandoned and Maria (Mary) went to live with her niece in a nearby house, possibly Smith’s house. The contexts that were identified during the site examination can be dated individually in a attempt to place their creation within the context of occupation of the site. Eleven contexts were identified, some with more refinement than others. The yard contexts represent yard scatter and refuse disposal in a discontinuous sheet midden around the house during the entire occupancy. As a way of better understanding the site history, the temporal serration of the deposits, the patterns of refuse disposal, and in an attempt to assign specific deposits to the Samuel and Maria Fuller family, mean ceramic dates were calculated for each of the 11 deposits. The methodology of measuring the central tendency in assemblages of datable ceramics from historic sites was pioneered by Stanley South in the 1970s (South 1971, 1977). If one takes the assumption that the artifacts comprising the material culture once in use at a site, specifically the ceramics, change in frequency in a predictable pattern from being initially rare and then prominent during peak popularity and then their occurrence declining as popularity wanes, at 38
any given moment, the assemblage in use is a mixture of the individual artifact type trajectories. Stanley South took this reasoning and created a mathematical means to calculate the median date of an assemblage. South’s Mean Ceramic Date Formula, as it has come to be known as, uses a range of dates, principally derived from Ivor Noel Hume’s Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America (1969). South’s method of estimating an assemblage’s central tendency takes the average of the production range of each ceramic type (the median date) and multiplies this date by the number of sherds of that ceramic type recovered, the sum of which is added to the sums of the other ceramic types and the total is then divided by the total number of ceramic sherds used in the calculation. South’s method is based on a number of assumptions regarding the assemblages: - there was little or no time lag from manufacture to distribution - any time lag from distribution to discard that did occur can be considered inconsequential or can be ignored - Acquisition, breakage, and discard rates were reasonably uniform Ideally South Mean Ceramic Dates should be calculated using vessel counts versus sherd counts. One creamware vessel may be shattered into many sherds whereas a whiteware vessel may have been broken only into a few. If a mean ceramic date is calculated using sherds, the creamware sherd count would contribute more to the final date, thus pushing the date earlier versus being more median. By using vessel counts, the degree of fragmentation is nullified. Unfortunately, South’s method does not take into account a number of factors such as variations in manufacturers' outputs and delayed breakage, loss, and deposit, and the fact that it is likely that more than half of the pottery was made in the first half of the range. This last point would result in the true median age of the pottery type and the mean age would be earlier. The production dates given by South include ceramic types that were produced over centuries and when these are included in the formula, they tend to overwhelm the rarer, short-lived types which are more time sensitive. The main criticism of South’s method is that it gives to insufficient attention to discard lags, also called the curation effect. If there is a significant difference between the date of acquisition and the date of discard, such as is the case in curated or heirloom pieces (antiques) that may be present in a household, this would yield an earlier mean date. Also, if the household was of a lower economic status, unable to afford the purchase of the latest in ceramic fashions, curation or the purchase of older, out of date (and thus less expensive) ceramics could produce an earlier date for the site than was truly the case. Various researchers have attempted to deal with the failings of South’s formula in an attempt to retain the baby and discard the bathwater by substituting the mode (peak of popularity) for the production mid-range or by taking the whole uniform distributions into account, rather than just the mid-ranges (Steponaitas and Kintigh 1993). Another way to estimate the occupation or creation date for a site for deposit assemblage is to use Cumulative Uniform Distributions whereby the uniform distributions of different artifact classes results in a more probable probability distribution. This method does not give undue weight to types with long production ranges. The peak in the distribution suggests the most likely period of the assemblage's composition. This technique has the advantage of giving greater weight to temporally sensitive types and accounts for length of production distribution, it visually aids in the identification of multiple occupations, as well as being less sensitive to the extremes of the distribution. The dates for each of the contexts identified during the course of field work was investigated using two methods. The first was a modified South Mean Ceramic Date formula. Instead of using South’s Noel Hume derived dates, the dates used were based on decorative pattern occurrence and 39
transferprint color, and other more temporally specific means. Vessel counts were used in the calculation of these dates versus sherd counts due to the failings of the use of sherd counts as discussed previously. The dates that were generated reflected a mean date when the assemblage could have been created. These mean dates were used to seriate the contexts temporally. The actual date of creation for each context was investigated using as many datable artifact types as possible (ceramics, glass, metal, etc.). These dates were compared with the median dates. One of the reasons why mean ceramic dates were calculated was to examine the two possible occupation date ranges for the site. If the site was occupied soon after the property was acquired by Consider Fuller and then was abandoned after Maria Fuller purchased another house, the date range of occupation would be 1790-1895 with a mean ate being 1842.5. If the site was occupied when Samuel and Maria Fuller were married and then abandoned after Maria bought another house the date range would be 1836-1895 with a median date being 1865.5. The overall mean ceramic date for the site was calculated using the vessel counts (excluding redwares and stonewares) as 1841.96, giving support to the idea that the site was first occupied before Samuel and Maria were married. Alternately this could also be argued to show that the family used older ceramics, thus creating a time lag curation effect. The earliest ceramics were the creamwares (N= 4 vessels), and undecorated pearlwares (N=2 vessels). The mean ceramic dates generated for the 11 contexts were as follows: Table 15. Mean Ceramic Dates by context. Context Mean Ceramic Date Hearth 1831 Terrace 1833.3 Cellar Hole 1834.5 South Room 1834.7 North Yard 1838.6 East Yard 1842.9 West Yard 1843.7 South Yard 1844.8 West room 1845.4 NYM 1847.9 Trench 1 1850.1 Overall Date 1841.96 Table 15 shows the context dates, arranged chronologically for the 11 contexts. The hearth, terrace, cellar hole and south room had the earliest dates, indicating that they are all coexistent and indicating that the terrace was likely constructed at the same time as the hearth and cellarhole. The most recent dates were associated with the north yard midden (NYM) and Trench 1, both of which are believed to have been created at the time of the abandonment of the site. Datable artifacts provided terminus post quams (TPQ) for each context. The TPQ method identifies the most recent artifact in a deposit, thus representing "the date after which the artifacts must have found their way into the ground" (Noel Hume 1980: 11).. Using the ceramic and glass bottles, the following TPQs were generated (Table 16):
Table 16. Terminus post quam dates by context Context Ceramic TPQ Glass Bottle TPQ Cellar Hole Post 1840 Post 1800 Hearth Post 1840 Post 1870 Terrace Post 1840 Post 1830 South Room Post 1840 West Room Post 1840 Post 1830 East Yard Post 1841 Post 1850 South Yard Post 1840 West Yard Post 1840 Post 1870 North Yard Post 1850 NYM Post 1840 Post 1867 Trench 1 Post 1874 Post 1880
The Terrace yielded the earliest TPQ while Trench 1 yielded the latest As a whole, the median dates and TPQs indicate that the hearth, terrace, cellar hole and house were constructed at approximately the same time, between the late eighteenth to early nineteenth centuries, possibly between the 1790 purchase of the property by Consider Fuller and the proposed occupation by Samuel and Maria Fuller in c. 1836. The paucity of earlier artifacts (creamware, undecorated pearlwares totaling six vessels) argues against a late eighteenth century occupation while the overall mea ceramic date, when compared with the median occupation date, argues for it. This contradiction is believed to be the result of time lag caused by the curation effect of a lower income household using and retaining older ceramics and not replacing them with more in-fashion pieces in the way that a wealthier family would be expected to. The house, terrace, and a portion of the hearth deposits are believed to be related to the earliest occupation of the house, estimated at c. 1830-1840, while the yard deposits, excepting the north yard midden, represent aggregate assemblages made up of yard scatter deposited over the course of the occupation. Unfortunately, documentation is lacking that would definitely attribute these deposits to Samuel and Maria Fuller. Other than the north yard midden and Trench 1 deposits, no other house cleaning deposits were identified, likely indicating a continuity of occupation by the same or related persons for the entire use life of the property, arguing in favor of, but not conclusively proving, an occupation by Samuel and Maria and their family from the 1830s to the 1890s. The North yard Midden and the deposit in Trench 1 represent later nineteenth century primary bulk deposits representing a one time event, likely related to the cleaning out of the house at the time it was abandoned by Maria Fuller c. 1895 when she purchased another house nearby. The earlier dates generated for these deposits represent and example of time lag caused by the curation effect of antiques such as the pressed glass, oil lamp, pearlware, and bottles. It is unknown to what the total material culture assemblage for the household would have been at the time the site was abandoned, as it is likely that an unknown portion of the material culture was removed with Maria Fuller, and thus we are left with a biased sample favoring antiques and worn out curated items such as the three-legged cast iron cooking pot with the burned-out rim.
REFERENCES CITED 950 CMR 70 Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, Massachusetts Historical Commission. Code of Massachusetts Regulations, Title 950, Part 70. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA. Adams, William Hampton 1990 Landscape Archaeology: Landscape History and the American Farmstead. Historical Archaeology. Vol 24: pp 93-101. Andrew, George F. 1866 Report of Selectmen of the Town of Kingston and the Annual Report of the School Committee for the Year Ending March 1, 1866. George F. Andrew, Plymouth, MA. Anonymous 1795 Map of Kingston. On file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. Bailey, Sarah Y. 1920 The Story of Jones River in Pilgrim Plymouth 1620-1726 which in the latter year became Kingston, Mass. Kingston Branch of the Alliance of Unitarian Women, Kingston, MA. Barber, John Warner 1839 Historical Collections. Dorr, Howland and Co. Worcester. Barlow, Raymond E. and Joan E. Kaiser 1993 A Guide to Sandwich Glass Pressed Tableware. Barlow-Kaiser Publishing Company, Inc., Windham, NH in conjunction with Schiffer Publishing Ltd., Atglen, PA. Beaudry, Mary 2001-2002 Trying to Think Progressively about 19th Century Farms. Northeast Historical Archaeology, Vol. 30-31, pp. 129-142. 1999 House and Household: The Archaeology of Domestic Life in early America. In Old and New Worlds. Edited by Geoff Egan and R. L. Michael. Oxbow Books 117-126. 1986 The Archaeology of Historic land Use in Massachusetts. Historical Archaeology 20 (2), pp.38- 46. 1984 Archaeology of the Historical Household. Man in the Northeast 28: 27-38. Binford, Lewis R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20. Bourne, Silvanus 1832 Map of Kingston. Lithographs, Boston, MA. Boynton, E.N. 1876 Map of the Town of Kingston Plymouth county Mass. E. N. Boynton, Boston, 42
MA. Bragdon, Kathleen J. 1996 Native People of Southern New England 1500-1650. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. Braun, Esther and David Braun 1994 The First Peoples of the Northeast. Lincoln Historical Society, Lincoln, Massachusetts. Bussey, Stanley D., James M. Briscoe, Marsha K. King, Edna Feiner, and Duncan Ritchie 1992 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and Soils Inspection of Hanscom Air Force Base. Prepared by The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. Pawtucket, Rhode Island, for Hanscom Air Force Base, Bedford, Lexington, and. Lincoln, MA. Carson, Cary 2006 “Consumption” in A Companion to Colonial America, ed by Daniel Vickers. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA. Catts, Wade P. 2001.2002 Research Questions for the Archaeology of Rural Places: Experiences from the Middle Atlantic. Northeast Historical Archaeology, Vol. 30-31, pp. 143-154. Catts, Wade P. And Jay F. Custer 1990 Tenant Farmers, Stone Masons, and Black Laborers: Final Archaeological Investigations of the Thomas Williams Site, Glascow, New Castle County, Delaware. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeology Series No. 82, Dover. Chartier, Craig 2007a Report on the Intensive Survey Testing at the Wildcat Hill Residential Subdivision, Norwell, Massachusetts. Report on file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston. 2007b Completion Memorandum of Data Recovery Investigations at the Ja-Mar Farm Estates Lots 1 and 2, Massachusetts. On file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston. 2007c Report on the Intensive Survey Testing at the Tall Timbers Estates Project Area, Kingston, Massachusetts. Report on file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston. Clark, Christopher 1990 The Roots of Rural Capitalism: Western Massachusetts, 1780-1860. Cornell University Press, Ithica, N.Y. Cross, John R. 1996 The Paleo-Indian Period (ca l1,500-9000 B.P.). In History and Archaeology of the North Atlantic Region: A Context for Cultural Resource Management. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC. Curran, Mary Lou and Dena Dincauze 43
Paleoindians and Paleo-Lakes: New Data from the Connecticut Drainage. In Amerinds and their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, edited by W. S. Newman and B. Salwen, pp.333-348. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 288, Albany, NY.
Davis, Charles G. 1869 Report of the trial of Samuel M. Andrews: indicted for the murder of Cornelius Holmes, before the Supreme judicial court of Massachusetts, December 11, 1868. Including the rulings of the court upon many questions of law, and a full statement of authorities upon the subject of transitory insanity. Hurd and Houghton, New York. Available on Google Books. Dincauze, Dena F. 1980 Research Priorities in Northeast Prehistory. In Proceedings of the Conference on Northeastern Archaeology, edited by J. Moore, pp. 29-48. Research Reports 19, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 1976 The Neville Site: 8,000 Years at Amoskeag, Manchester, New Hampshire. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Monographs No.4. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 1975 The Late Archaic Period in Southern New England. Arctic Anthropology 12 (2):23-34. 1974 An Introduction to Archaeology in the Greater Boston Area. Archaeology of Eastern North America 2:39-66. Dincauze, Dena and Judith Meyer 1977 The Archaeological Resources of East-Central New England U.S. National Park Service. Report on file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. Dincauze, Dena and Mitchell Mulholland 1977 Early and Middle Archaic Site Distributions and Habitats in Southern New England. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments, edited by W. S. Newman and B. Salwen. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288:439-456.
Di Zerega Wall, Diana 1991 Sacred Dinners and Secular Teas: Constructing Domesticity in Mid-19th-Century New York. Historical Archaeology 25 (4): 69-81. Division for Historic Preservation, State of Vermont 1990 Vermont Historic Preservation Plan. Division for Historic preservation, Montpelier, VT. Donohue, Barbara 2002 Data Recovery Report for the Footprint of the Proposed Hammond Street Building and Construction Impact Zone at the Thwing/Haynes/Slade Site, Chestnut Hill Campus, Boston College, Newton, Massachusetts. On file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. 2001 Intensive Survey for the Proposed Hammond Street Building Chestnut Hill Campus Boston College Newton, Massachusetts. On file at the Massachusetts Historical 44
Commission, Boston, MA. Donohue, Barbara, Martin Dudek, and Leith Smith 2000 Site Examination of Historic Site No. 1 in The Planned South Street Development in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. On file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. Donohue, Barbara and Leith Smith 2003 A Site Examination at the Sophronia Young House Site in the New Seabury Development, Mashpee, MA. On file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. Doucette, Dianna 2005 Reflections of the Middle Archaic: A View from Annasnappett Pond. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society. Vol. 66 (1). Dudek, Martin 2005 The Whortleberry Hill Site: An Early Holocene Camp in Dracut, MA. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society. Vol. 66 (1). Dunford, Frederick 1992 Conditional Sedentism: the Logistical Flexibility of Estuarine Settlements in Circumscribed Environments. Paper presented at the fifty-seventh annual meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, 8-12, April, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dutton, Henry W. & Son 1870 Annual Report of the Selectmen and Assessors of the Town of Kingston for the Financial Year Ending February 28, 1870. Henry W. Dutton & Son, Boston, MA. 1869 Annual Report of the Selectmen and Assessors of the Town of Kingston for the Financial Year Ending February 28, 1869. Henry W. Dutton & Son, Boston, MA. 1868 Annual Report of the Selectmen and Assessors of the Town of Kingston for the Financial Year Ending February 29, 1868. Henry W. Dutton & Son, Boston, MA.
Dwyer, Alison and Alan T. Synenki and Nora Sheehan 1990 Archaeological Investigations of David Fiske's 17th Century "Homestall". In: Archaeological Investigations of Minute man National Historical Park, Volume 1: Farmers and Artisans of the Historical Period. Cultural Resources Management Study no. 22. National Park Service. Esary, Mark Edward 1982 Archaeological Geographical And Historical Comparison. Eleven NineteenthCentury Archaeological Sites Near Belleville. M.S.thesis. Illinois State University. Normal, Illinois. Farwell, J. E. 1867 Annual Report of the Selectmen and Assessors of the Town of Kingston for the Financial Year Ending February 28, 1867. J.E. Farwell & Company, Boston, MA. 1864 Annual Report of the Selectmen and Assessors of the Town of Kingston for the Financial Year Ending February 28, 1864. J.E. Farwell & Company, Boston, MA. 1861 Annual Report of the Selectmen and Assessors of the Town of Kingston for the Financial 45
Year Ending February 28, 1861. J.E. Farwell & Company, Boston, MA. Feder, Kenneth L. 1994 A Village of Outcasts: Historical Archaeology and Documentary Research at the Lighthouse Site. Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View, CA. Forrest, Daniel T. 2000 Population Movement and Lithic Technology During the Early Archaic of Southern New England Paper presented at the annual Conference on New England Archaeology, May 20, 2000, at Sturbridge, MA. Friedlander, Amy 1991 House and Barn: The Wealth of Farmers 1795-1815. Historical Archaeology, 25 (2): 15-29. Funk, Robert F. 1972 Early Man in the Northeast and the Late Glacial Environment. Man in the Northeast 4:739. Garvin, James L. 2001 A Building History of Northern New England. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH.
Grettler, David J., George L. Miller, Wade P. Catts, Keith Doms, Mara Guttman, Karen IIplenski Angela Hoseth, Jay Hodny, and Jay F. Custer 1996 Original Farms on the Edge of Town Final Archaeological Investigations of the MooreTaylor, Benjamin Wynn (Lewis-E), and Wilson-Lewis Farmsteads, State Route 1 Corridor, Kent County, Delaware. Delaware Department of Transportation, Wilmington, DE. Haggett, Peter, Andrew D. Cliff; and Allen Frey 1977 Locational Analysis in Human Geography, 2nd edition. Wiley, New York, NY. Handsman, Russell 1981 Early Capitalism and the Center Village of Canaan, Connecticut: A study of Transformation and Separations. Artifacts 3. Hasenstab, Robert 1999 Fishing, Farming, and Finding the Village Sites: Centering Late Woodland New England Algonquians. In The Archaeological Northeast, edited by Mary Ann Levine, Kenneth E. Sassaman, and Michael S. Nassaney. Bergin & Carvey, Westport, CT. Hasenstab, Robert, M. Mulholland, and R. Holmes 1990 Archaeological Investigations at Prehistoric Site 19-HD-109, Westfield Massachusetts. Report on file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. Henretta, James A. 1978 Families and Farms: Mentalite in Pre-Industrial America. William and 46
Mary Quarterly 35: 3-32. Hickock, Russell 1859 Improve Insulators for Lightning Rods. U.S. Patent No. 23, 373. March 29, 1859. January 2009. http://www.nia.org/timeline/text/0023373.htm Hicks, Dan and Mary C. Beaudry 2006 The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Higgs, E.S. and C. Vita-Finzi 1982 Prehistoric Economies: A Territorial Approach. Papers in Economic Prehistory: Studies by Members and Associates of the British Academy Major Research Project in the Early History of Agriculture. ed. E.S. Higgs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England Hinks, Stephen J., Denise L. Gantz, and Martin T. Fuess 1998 Seperating the Wheat from the Chaff: Evaluating the Research Potential of Postbellum and Early Twentieth-Century Farmsteads. Paper for the 1998 Summer Meetings and Workshop, Transportation Research Board, Committee on Historic and Archaeological Preservation in Transportation, San Diego. Hurd, D. Hamilton 1884 History of Plymouth County, Massachusetts, Vol. One. J. W. Lewis, Philadelphia, P. Kenyon Ierley, Merritt 1999 Open House A Guided Tour of the American Home 1637-Present. Henry Holt and Company, New York, NY. Johnson, Eric S., and Thomas F Mahlstedt 1984 Guide to Prehistoric Site Files and Artifact Classification System Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. Johnson, Frederick 1942 The Boylston Street Fishweir. Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, Vol.2. Andover, MA. Johnson, Frederick (editor) 1949 The Boylston Street Fishweir II: A Study of the Geology, Paleobotany, and Biology of a Site on Stuart Street in the Back Bay District of Boston, Massachusetts. Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology 4(1) Andover, MA. Johnson, Susan A. and Russell G. Handsman 1996 Histories and Archaeology in the Near Interior Region of Southern Rhode Island. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R.I. Kenyon, Victoria B. and Patricia McDowell 1983 Environmental Setting of Merrimack River Valley Prehistoric Sites. Man in the Northeast 25.
Kerber, Jordan E. 1988 Where are the Late Woodland Villages in the Narragansett Bay Region? Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 49(2): 66-71. Kintigh, Keith 1988 The Effectiveness of Subsurface Testing: A Simulation Approach. American Antiquity 53:686-707. Klein, Terry H. 1991 Nineteenth-Century Ceramics and Models of Consumer Behavior. Historical Archaeology. 25 (2): 77-91.
Klein, Terry H. And Sherene Baugher 2001.2002 Addressing an Historic Preservation Dilemma: The Future of Nineteenth-Century Farmstead Archaeology in the Northeast. Northeast Historical Archaeology, Vol. 3031, pp 167-180. Kovel, Ralph M. and Terry H. 1973 Know Your Antiques. Crown Publishers. New York, New York. Kulik, Cary 1987 “Dams, Fish, and Farmers: Defense of Public Rights in Eighteenth-Century Rhode Island” pp.25-51 in The Countryside in the Age of Capitalist Transformation Steven Hahn and Jonathan Prude, eds. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel, NH. Kulikoff, Allan 1989 The Transition to Capitalism in Rural America. William and Mary Quarterly 46: 120-144. Lehner, Lois 1988 Lehner’s Encyclopedia of U.S. Marks on Pottery, Porcelain & Clay. Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky. Leibowitz, Joan 1985 Yellow Ware: The Transitional Ceramic, Schiffer Publishing Co., Exxon, PA. . Lightfoot, Kent 1986 Regional Surveys in the Eastern United States: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Implementing Subsurface Testing Programs. American Antiquity 51.484-504. Little, Barbara, Erika Martin Seibert, Jan Townsend, John Sprinkle Jr., and John Knoerl 2000 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties. National Register Bulletin 36. United States Department of the Interior, National Parks Service. Luedtke, Barbara E. 1988 Where are the Late Woodland Villages in Eastern Massachusetts? Bulletin of the 48
Massachusetts Archaeological Society 49(2): 58-65. Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) 1985 Historic and Archaeological Resources of Southeastern Massachusetts. Massachusetts Historical Commission, Office of the Secretary of State, Boston, MA. 1984 Reconnaissance Survey Report: Kingston. Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. Massachusetts, Plymouth County 1880 United States Census Population Schedule. January 2009. www.ancestry.com 1870 United States Census Population Schedule. January 2009. www.ancestry.com 1860 United States Census Population Schedule. January 2009. www.ancestry.com 1850 United States Census Population Schedule. January 2009. www.ancestry.com McClelland, Linda Flint, Timothy J. Keller, Genevieve P. Keller and Robert Z. Melnick 1990 National Register Bulletin 30: How to Identify, Evaluate and Register Rural Historic Landscapes. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. McConnell, Kevin 1990 Spongeware and Spatterware. Schiffer Publishing. McCorvie, Mary R. 1987 The Davis, Baldridge, And Huggins Sites Three Nineteenth Century Upland South Farmsteads In Perry County Illinois. Preservation Series 4. American Resources Group, Ltd. Carbondale, Illinois. McManamon, Francis P. 1984 Prehistoric Cultural Adaptations and Their Evolution on Outer Cape Cod. In Chapters in the Archaeology of Cape Cod!, Vol.2, edited by Francis P. McManamon, pp.339-417. Cultural Resources Management Study No.8. Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston, MA. Melville, Doris Johnson 1976 Major Bradford’s Town: A History of Kingston 1726-1976. Town of Kingston, Kingston, MA. Meltzer, David 1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory 2:1-52. Miller, George L. 1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th-Century Ceramics. Historical Archaeology14:1-40. 1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25(1):1-25. Miller, George L. and Robert R. Hunter, Jr. 1990 English Shell Edged Earthenware: Alias Leeds Ware, Alias Feather Edge. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Edgewood Seminar.
Miller, George L. And Terry H. Klein 2001 A System of Ranking the Research Potential of 19th and 20th century Farmstead Sites. Northeast Historical Archaeology, Vol. 30-31, pp. 155-180.
Miller, J. Jefferson 1965 Transfer-printed English Earthenware for the American Market. Apollo 81(35):4650).1987 Moore, Roger G., Shawn Bonath Carlson, and Nicola Hubbar1997 1997 Archaeological Assessment of Parcels within the ball Park at Union Station Project, City of Houston, Harris County, Texas. MAC Project No. 96-104. Moore Archaeological Consulting, Houston. Mulholland, Mitchell T. 1984 Patterns of Change in Prehistoric Southern New England: A Regional Approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Mrozowski, Stephen A. 1990 “The Faces and Places of Marginality” in Conference on New England Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 9, No.2, pp 3-6. Nanapashamet 1996 Wampanoag Subsistence Cycle. Wampanoag Indian Program Training Manuel. Plimoth Plantation. Nason, Rev. Elias 1874 A Gazeteer of the State of Massachusetts. B.B. Russell, Boston, MA. National Parks Service 2007 Listing a Property: Some Frequently Asked Questions. January 2009 www.nps.gov/nr/listing.htm Nicholas, George P. 1990 The Archaeology of Early Place; Early Postglacial Land Use and Ecology at Robbins Swamp, Northwestern Connecticut. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mr. Noel Hume, Ivor 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Vintage Books, New York. Parker, George Kinship 1968 Sailor's Narratives of Voyages along the New England Coast 1524-1624. Burt Franklin Press, New York. Paynter, Robert 1982 Models of Spatial Inequality: Settlement Patterns in Historic Archeology. Academic Press, New York, NY. 50
Plymouth Deeds Plymouth County Courthouse, Plymouth, MA. Plymouth Probate Plymouth Registry of Probate, Plymouth, MA. Price, Cynthia R. 1979 Nineteenth Century Ceramics in the Eastern Ozark Border Region. Center for Archaeological Research, Monograph Series 1. Southwest Missouri State University. Ritchie, William A. 1969 The Archaeology of Martha's Vineyard. Natural History Press, Garden City, NY.
Root, Dolores 1978 Predictive Model of Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement on the Outer Continental Shelf. Institute for Conservation Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Rothenberg, Winifred B. 1981 The Market and Massachusetts Farmers, 1750-1855. Journal of Economic History 41: 283-314. Sellers, Charles 1991 The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America 1815-1846. Oxford University Press, New York. Shaw, Leslie C. 1996 The Middle Woodland Period (ca. 2000-1000 B.P.) In History and Archaeology of the North Atlantic Region: A Context for Cultural Resource Management, edited by Eric S. Johnson pp. 84-100. North Atlantic Region, National Park Service , Boston, MA. Skehan, James 2001 Roadside Geology of Massachusetts. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Montana. Slotkin, Richard and James K. Folsom 1978 So Dreadfull a Judgement: Puritan Responses to King Philip’s War 1676-1677. Wesleyan University press, University Press of New England, Hanover. Smith, Samuel D. 1990 Site Survey as a Method for Determining Historic Site Significance. Historical Archaeology. Vol. 24: pp. 34-41. Snow, Dean 1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press, New York Soltow, Lee 1992 Inequalities in the Standard of Living in the United States, 1798-1875. In American Economic Growth and Standards of Living Before the Civil War, ed. By Robert E. 51
Gallman and John Joseph Wallis, 121-171. University of Chicago Press. Sonderman, Robert Charles 1979 Archaeological Explorations of the Jesse Lindall and Twiss Hill Historic Sites St. Clair County Illinois. M.S. thesis. Illinois State University. Normal, Illinois. Spargo, John 1926 The Potters and Potteries of Bennigton. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts.
Spencer-Wood , Suzanne and Scott D. Heberling 1984 Ceramics and Socio-Economic Status of the Green Family, Winsor, Vermont. Northeast Historical Archaeology, 13: 33-52. Stelle, Lenville J. 1988 History, Archeology, and the 1730 Siege of the Foxes. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference. Champaign, Illinois. Steponaitis, V. P., and K. W. Kintigh 1993 Estimating Site Occupation Spans from Dated Artifact Types: Some New Approaches. In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by J. B. Stoltman, pp. 349–361. Archaeological Report, no. 25. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Sussman, Lynne 1977 Changes in Pearlware Dinnerware, 1780-1830. Historical Archaeology, 11: 105111. Stewart-Abernathy, Leslie C. 1986 Urban Farmsteads: household Responsibilities in the City. Historical Archaeology 20 (2), pp.5-14. Stone, B. D. and H. W. J. Borns 1986 Pleistocene Glacial and Interglacial Stratigraphy of New England, Long Island, and Adjacent Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine. In Quaternary Glaciations in the Northern Hemisphere, edited by V. Sibrave, D.Q. Bowen, and G.M. Richmond, pp.39-52. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK. Taylor, William 1976 A Bifurcated Point Concentration. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 37 (3-4):36-41. Thorbahn, Peter 1988 Where are the Late Woodland Villages in Southern New England? Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 49(2): 46-57. 1984 Survey and Planning Project Completion Report, Prehistoric Land Use Zones Along the Taunton River. Report on file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. 1982 Settlement Systems in Prehistoric Southern New England: Final Report on the I-495 Data Recovery Program, Volume I. Report on file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA.
Thorbahn, Peter F., and Deborah C. Cox 1984 Survey and Planning Project Completion Report, Prehistoric Land Use Zones Along the Taunton River. Report on file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. Thorbahn, Peter, Leonard W. Leopard, Deborah C. Cox and Brona Simon 1980 Prehistoric Settlement Processes in New England: A Unified Approach to Cultural Resource Management and Archaeological Research. Report on file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1969 Soil Survey of Plymouth County. On line at http://nesoil.com/plymouth. United States Department of Interior (USDI) 1980 Cultural Resources in Massachusetts: A Model for Management. United States Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. Waldbauer, Richard C 1986 House Not a Home: Hill Farm Clustered Communities. Man in the Northeast 31:139-150. Walker, George H. 1879 Atlas of Plymouth County. George H. Walker and Co. Boston, MA. Walling, Henry E. 1857 Map of Plymouth County Massachusetts. Harvard University Library Image Delivery Service. January 2009. http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/2979360?buttons=y Williams, Roger 1971 A Key Into the Language of America. 1971 edition. Wilson, John S. 1990 We’ve Got Thousands of These! What makes an Historic Farmstead Significant? Historical Archaeology, Vol 24: pp. 23-33.
Wood, Joseph 1978 The Origin of the New England Village Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, Pennsylvania State University, Altoona, PA. Zimler, Dana L. 1987 A Socioeconomic Indexing of 19th Century Illinois Farmsteads. Manuscript on file. Department of Anthropology. University of Illinois. Urbana, Illinois.